Reply With Quote
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Last edited by JeNNiF00F00; 08-17-2010 at 11:58 PM.
Stupid expenditure of taxpayer money, but in no way a bailout.
earmarks like this make up less than 1% of the budgets if you add up ALL the earmarks throughout the entire US.
Sure it sucks but there are much bigger fish to fry. Remember "pork" is sort of a way for constituents to keep more of their own money.
Last edited by muh_roads; 04-07-2009 at 05:22 PM.
Outrageous BUT we need to focus on the prize. The true destructer of wealth the Fed Reserve.
I don't care, its still disgusting to see this $#@!. I understand that the true destructor is the Fed.
Poor politics. We need this to go through to get the masses to wake up. This will help our cause.
//
Last edited by Kludge; 04-07-2009 at 04:42 PM. Reason: Don't feed teh trolls?
I thought Bill Gates and Microsoft didn't have enough money to pay American Engineers and developers and was lobbying Congress to increase the H1B Slave Labor VISAs so Microsoft could continue to stimulate the economy?
Oh look at the half full glass... It creates jobs and stimulates the economy
The American Dream, Wake Up People, This is our country! <===click
"All eyes are opened, or opening to the rights of man, let the annual return of this day(July 4th), forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them."
Thomas Jefferson June 1826
Rock The World!
USAF Veteran
End the mofo Fed! Now!
Oh... I thought his foundation was out of money for a second there...
Then I realise, oh it congress spending money, but they are spending it in association with a company that isn't bankrupt... so this is a new low?
In New Zealand:
The Coastguard is a Charity
Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
The DMV is a private non-profit
Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
A tax return has 4 fields
Business licenses aren't a thing
Prostitution is legal
We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care
Getting upset about about individual make-work jobs from the stimulus is a waste of time because the money is going to be wasted no matter what. If it's not spent there it will be spent somewhere else. This 'stimulus' is a disaster.
On the other hand, Microsoft gets to spend the money it would have spent on the bridge somewhere else. They had already evaluated it as being a good use of private capital.Originally Posted by fletcher
It could be a heck of a lot worse.
In New Zealand:
The Coastguard is a Charity
Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
The DMV is a private non-profit
Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
A tax return has 4 fields
Business licenses aren't a thing
Prostitution is legal
We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care
Could it? Does your bridge have trees on it? Does anyone here ever cross a tree-lined bridge?
Microsoft would have done this themselves, and should do it themselves because the government doesn't owe them $#!+ for buying two plots of land with a highway in between. Now they're getting an elevated, tree-lined boulevard built with taxpayer money and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if you can't even drive across it without a company pass permitting you to be on the property. It does nothing but nothing except save Microsoft some employee time despite a dumb campus design.
At least Ted Stevens' Bridge to Nowhere served individuals. Not many, but individuals nonetheless.
Hey, lighten up. Maybe they really do need that bailout now that their new versions of Office Apps (Word, Excel, etc.) and the VISTA OS have been out in the hands of the public for a few years.
Seriously, every time I hunt for some menu item, I say to myself, "$@#%$! they're done". They can go under and let this be their last stumulus to the economy via all the training (re-training) sub-contractors that "love" teaching the corporate drones about those new graphical user interface layouts... NO MORE $ PUBLIC OR PRIVATE (from me)
But Bill Gates is such a philanthropist! Doesn't that make up for it?I thought Bill Gates and Microsoft didn't have enough money to pay American Engineers and developers and was lobbying Congress to increase the H1B Slave Labor VISAs so Microsoft could continue to stimulate the economy?
Oh look at the half full glass... It creates jobs and stimulates the economy
Let's review: he sqeezes money from a generation of American tech workers, and "generously" gives a little of that back as charity to the world, so everyone can worship him. How is that different from socialism?
How is this different than building a road or bridge anywhere? They are always going to serve the select businesses and homes in that area.
How is it different? What homes?
Have you seen the air bridge between the two towers of the Wrigley Building in Chicago? Should something like that be built with taxpayer money even though it clearly only benefits Wrigley?
Last edited by acptulsa; 04-08-2009 at 09:07 AM.
No of course not but what I am saying is why should ANY roads or bridges be funding by taxpayer money? They are in principle the same as the picture you posted and the same as the bridge for the microsoft campus. What is the "acceptable" level of people who benefit from the bridge that make it worth drawing from the public funds for? Obviously you don't like just one beneficiary, how about two, how about fifty? Where do you draw the line?How is it different? What homes?
Have you seen the air bridge between the two towers of the Wrigley Building in Chicago? Should something like that be built with taxpayer money even though it clearly only benefits Wrigley?
I disagree. But then I grew up right by Route 66, watching a parade of plates from faraway states pass by...
Where do you draw the line? Well, that's a good question. And I personally think it can be better answered in Oklahoma City (or Montpelier, or Athens, or Little Rock, or Denver, or Bismarck, or Columbus, etc.) than in Washington, D.C.
There's a reason the individual states were knit together into a whole. The combined economic might of these United States has been a thing to behold, thanks in no small part to the Constitution's guarantees of free trade and free movement between the states.
Last edited by acptulsa; 04-08-2009 at 09:21 AM.
Well I agree that the states could best decide, that doesn't mean it's best though. I think your answer is avoiding the question though, if you where the one deciding, how would you decide to spend anothers money on a road or bridge?
Last edited by Kraig; 04-08-2009 at 11:07 AM.
I think we're trying to go from on topic to hijack, here, Kraig. And I'd just as soon not. Especially since I smell another minarchy/anarchy argument brewing and I personally think there have been enough of those. Sorry.
Suffice to say I think this Microsoft Bridge crosses the line and how! I mean, it doesn't even appear to be a public street!!
Well I don't think it has to go that far, it's just a question of yes/no to public roads. The OP is saying Microsoft is getting a "bailout" and I am saying all roads are a form of a bailout, to me that is on topic. It boils down to this very simple question: How many people have to benefit from a road/bridge to make it "fair" for those who paid for it and receive no benefit? I'm not trying to start an argument though, just wanted to get that point out there.
$36 million for a bridge? Hey guys, i live just down the hill from this proposed boondoggle. i find it amazing that MSFT has actually been cutting staff while building a whole new campus on the other side of the freeway. i see many Microsoft "shuttle" cars and vans (usually hybrids of some sort) driving folks from one site to another, and i often wonder why a company that prides itself on "electronic" communication needs to have this fleet of cars.
aside from that, the company already has its own bus stop, a new freeway off ramp, numerous new stop lights and expanded roadways (adding to my commute time in whatever direction i go), and the distance we're talking about here is so minimal that even a fat-ass like Steve Ballmer could make it in 15 minutes walking.
not shown in those drawings is the existing freeway overpass that would probably touch the lower right hand corner of the drawing. you can try and google map it and you'll see 40th street crossing over the freeway. the MSFT campus has 156th as an eastern border and 40th as a northern border.
Ah, this reminds me of an oldie but goodie... had me rotflol at the time. Enjoy.
The scum are free to ride it - By Vin Suprynowicz ~1998
Outstanding!! Thank you for this! For the link-challenged, I will assume the good Mr. Suprynowicz won't mind a little copy-and-paste:
The scum are free to ride it
By Vin Suprynowicz
web posted November 1998
I do not know why I was so blessed -- because we show up on some list of "helpful daily newspapers over 100 000 circulation," I assume -- but recently I received an unsolicited query from M.M., who identifies herself as an undergraduate at Rutgers:
"My name is (M.M.), I am currently a senior at Rutgers University in New Jersey. I am researching how to get funding for a hypothetical grant proposal. I am proposing that a monorail be built at Rutgers University so that the student congestion can be relieved between classes.
"I am curious as to who would be willing to spend the money, currently I am looking into Federal Government funding, because Rutgers is a state funded school.
"If you have any helpful advice or web pages, please feel free to relay it onto me. ..."
Though I usually ditch the "Our third grade class is doing a report on your state" inquiries, this time I replied:
Hi, M. --
Why don't you approach a private railway or trolley company, to ask what the cost of building such a system would be. If no one else comes to mind, try calling Disney World in Orlando; I believe they have some privately-built "people movers." They might even be willing to estimate what the cost of debt service would be, if one were to sell private, corporate bonds to raise enough money for such construction. Presumably, one would want to pay off construction costs, plus the cost of debt service, in 20 or 30 years.
Then, by a simple process of mathematical calculation, one simply takes the projected ridership, divides that number by four (experience shows that most advance ridership estimates will err by at least that much -- they did when Los Angeles, Washington, and Miami recently built their mass transit systems), and solves for the fare which you would have to charge to recover your costs within 20 to 30 years ... plus a profit, of course. Few firms are going to be willing to invest the time and money in such a project unless both they and their bondholders make some money.
Of course, you now face a new problem. Your initial ridership estimates were probably based on the notion that riding this system would be free, or perhaps would cost a quarter.
As the fare increases over $1, and then over $2, student ridership is likely to drop off. Fewer riders mean you have to charge a higher fare. Eventually, the folks who graph such fare-versus-ridership equations refer to a point on the graph where ridership "drops off the cliff."
If you go past that point, you may have to face the possibility that no one will invest the requisite sums to build you such a system.
But then, your original inquiry didn't mention "investment," did it? It mentioned a "grant."
What does that mean, precisely? That the federal government should send you money taken from the paychecks of workers all over the country to build your system ... which no private investor will fund, and which no student would actually pay anything to ride? You do know, I hope, that if people refuse or find themselves unable to pay those taxes, the IRS will garnish their paychecks and seize their bank accounts, leaving them unable to buy groceries, pay the rent, or take their children to the doctor.
Perhaps federal taxation can be justified to fight wars against ruthless foreign dictators, or to fund courts where people can find justice. But to build a monorail to endlessly circle the campus of Rutgers University? I have just reviewed Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, which lists all the permissible things on which the U.S. Congress may spend money. It only takes up 431 words, if you can believe it. It says the Congress is allowed to "establish post roads." I suppose you could try to convince the Congress that the campus mailman would like to ride a monorail. Otherwise, I fear you may be out of luck, there.
Though that shouldn't mean you can't complete your assignment. Have you considered writing: "Why No Private Investors Are Likely to Willingly Fund a Monorail Proposal at Rutgers, and Why It Would Be Morally Wrong to Ask the Taxpayers to Fund a System Which is Thus Revealed by the Free Market to Be a Bad Idea"?
Alternatively, have you considered bicycles?
Best Wishes ...
Within hours, young M.M. at Rutgers responded:
"you are the biggest <censored> i have ever come in contact with. I am a mere 22 year old and i am simply researching a hypothetical monorail to relieve the congestion on the roads of New Brunswick ...
"thanks for all your help, jerk.
"m.m."
Suspecting by this time we were onto a live one, I wrote back:
Hi, m. --
You contacted me, as I recall (and pretty much "out of the blue"), to ask my advice. I took time out of a busy workday to send you a polite reply. I don't remember using any abusive language.
If a "mere 22-year-old" isn't responsible to consider the moral and ethical concerns which arise from proposing a "government grant" to fund a fancy train, at what age will you be ready to start considering such things? And are we safe in assuming you won't be going to the polls and voting until you're old enough to start considering such things?
And how old do you consider you would have to be, before it would be incumbent on you to assume some moral responsibility for the looting of the paychecks of others, to fund the government programs you "hypothetically" propose?
I understand it's very pleasant to attend a campus which is funded by taxes, and enjoy many other tax-funded benefits, without actually having to be the person who puts on a uniform and a gun and evicts a family from their home and puts that house up for auction to pay "back taxes." Perhaps such threats don't seem real to you, because you've never had a mortgage payment to make, and a paycheck which didn't quite cover everything, and then faced the trauma of losing that job and that paycheck -- while the taxes still have to be paid. If not, then I suppose you are fortunate, in some ways. But do you really think your good fortune will hold, forever?
At some point, we must all consider what we are asking those armed government agents to do for us, in our names, and whether we can forever safely assume that we don't incur any moral or ethical culpability for what we authorize them to do (every time we go to the polls), so that all our nice "grants" will still be available.
Unfortunately, m., you are far from (to use your words) "the biggest <censored> i have ever come in contact with." In fact, I do understand that you are only a small, insignificant, trainee "ass - - -" ... well, perhaps It'll be okay if I just say "redistributionist." But while you are relatively young, you still have an opportunity to consider these matters, before the habit of living off ill-gotten loot become too ingrained to break, with all the long-term jeopardy that represents.
Why is it, by the way, that proposing you contact private railroad companies for cost estimates on your "hypothetical" monorail, made me an <censored>? Because you realize no private firm would ever be likely to fund such a project, because it isn't likely to ever be profitable?
Have you studied no economics there at Rutgers, at all? It used to be a fairly good school. Has no professor ever suggested to you that the free market helps teach us which endeavors it's wisest to spend our time on -- that is to say, which will most benefit our fellow citizens -- by dictating that those projects which fulfill a real demand can be done at a profit, while those for which there really isn't much popular demand, cannot?
I find it strange that this concept causes you to take so much offense. Or did you go off to the university in hopes of never confronting any new facts or opinions which would disturb your established world-view, and economic assumptions?
Best wishes, at any rate, on your continuing education. ...
I guess sometimes we just live right, because the next response from M.M. was more than I could ever have hoped for:
"ok, so maybe i have been fortunate and maybe i am a naive poor little rich girl, who hasn't taken any economics classes. But, i hardly consider telling me that my idea is stupid and that building a monorail at this school is stupid ... polite ... by any means.
"I asked more along the lines of Global Defense Commission money ... something along those lines. the current bus system that we have is dirty, unreliable, and the scum of New Brunswick are free to ride it.
"Not only that but, we have to hire people to drive the buses (and let me assure you that all the bus drivers are lunatics).
"The Rutgers monorail would be set up so that only Rutgers I.D. carrying students could ride. And it would be electric so, much of the pollution pumped into this city on a daily basis, would be eliminated.
"I still maintain that you are an <censored>, due to your initial demeaning response. But, maybe we are getting somewhere now???
"M."
And to think that I sometimes consider turning my hand to fiction. But who could invent as perfect a character as Ms. M. of Rutgers, the superannuated undergraduate who "hasn't taken any economics classes"?
She just gets better and better.
She wants help turning up a "government grant" -- or perhaps now even some kind of U.N. eco-extremist grant (what the heck is the "Global Defense Commission"?) -- to fund a monorail boondoggle so she won't have to lug her pamphlets (it doesn't appear likely she carries or reads any actual books) around her bloated, already subsidized government campus.
And why can't she simply hop a city bus? Because, she now reveals, "the scum of New Brunswick are free to ride it"!
Oh, this is just too good. Having once hung around with campus socialists, I know they justify their self-centered demands with high-falutin' rhetoric about their solidarity with "the workers" and "the people," when in fact it is only on a giddy dare that they will stoop to rub shoulders for more than an hour or two with your actual, sweaty, beer-swilling Archie Bunkers of the working class.
But to come right out and say it -- she wants a new government-subsidized boondoggle, with access limited to "her kind," because the problem with the old tax-subsidized boondoggle (the bus system) is that they let the peasants ride it!
A "woman of the people" to warm the heart of our late Comrade Trotsky, if no one else.
And the monorail would be electric, mind you, thus creating no pollution in posh New Brunswick. No, the pollution would instead be created by the operation of a coal-fired electric power station in some dirty, low-class community miles away, down near Trenton, probably ... you know, the kind of slum inhabited by filthy tax-paying workers, who wouldn't know clean air if
they stumbled on it!
My cup runneth over. She restoreth my soul. And yea, we shall dwell in the ivory tower of the socialists, forever.
Posting Permissions
Connect With Us