(08-01-2016 11:28 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 08:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 07:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 07:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Tollways are good exceptions from the norm and should stay that way. By creating more toll roads you will do thee undesirable things: (i) force more people onto non-tollways thus increasing traffic and causing the wear and tear to increase, meaning that the government would be forced to do more repairs, more frequently; (ii) you inherently start to restrict the free movement of goods and services as those with less disposable income are forced to take the slower, more crowded routes to avoid tollways; and (iii) you'll likely increase the cost of shipping since privatized roads try to make a profit and thus charge fees to do so. I understand the benefits to privatizing a number of federal responsibilities, but transportation is one that I think is best kept public. After all, I'd argue that our interstate highway program started by Eisenhower is one of the reasons we are a thriving nation today.

Your analysis ignores one thing. The "free" roads aren't free. They're paid for with tax dollars. The question is whether those facilities should be paid for by those who use them, or by those who don't. All of your arguments must be framed in that context. The truly poor aren't using toll roads or "free" roads because they don't have cars. Should they be subsidizing the people who do? The Interstate highway system is a great accomplishment. Europe has basically duplicated it with toll roads, also a great accomplishment.

Quote:Instead of privatizing roadways why not just look into what inefficiencies our current federal and state transportation agencies have and try and fix those? Any idea what isn't working? Hard to find solutions to problems that aren't well known.

Those inefficiencies primarily result from one factor--the source of funding (tax dollars) is divorced from use of the facilities. If the two are linked, then the incentive is to serve the greatest need, because that's where the dollars are.

It isn't ignoring that non-tollways are not truly free, it just didn't get into it. The thing is, while public roads aren't free, they are not pay-to-use, which makes a big difference. And while you're right that the truly poor do not have cars, they likely don't have jobs either (I know there are some exceptions). The thing is, there are plenty of working poor or just below the middle class people who have cars but who could likely not afford the increase in costs from tollways to get to and from their jobs. If we assume that there is some savings in privatizing infrastructure, it would have to offset the increased costs of privatization. I doubt that the reduction in taxes from privatizing infrastructure spending would offset, what $750 of someone's tax burden that is making $30k per year? That would be a total tax decrease of 2.5% of their annual income, yet transportation spending, on the whole, makes up less than 2.5% of our total federal spending in 2015 (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budge...pending/). That's also assuming that they would spend $3 in tolls each day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year. Because more, and more, the working poor in urban areas are being priced out of the area they work (e.g. in Houston, the Inner Loop) they become more reliant on their own cars or public transportation. If they rely on public transportation, their commute increases to help decrease their costs, but, should we as a society avoid making that a a necessary decision?

Also, the thing you may be accidentally ignoring is that infrastructure is more than just highways. It is water treatment facilities, dams, bridges, and so much more. As a society, where do we want to fall in regards to providing these public goods and services? Do we want every person to pay "their fair share" as so many politicians put it, of do we need to ask those who are thriving to assist those who are not because a society functions best when their is less need for basic goods?

And with regard to inefficiencies, are you sure that is where it lies? That sounds good on paper and theory, but in reality, is that really the case?

You are assuming, quite incorrectly I would say, that the poor and working poor's only job scenarios are traditional 9-5 jobs and that is where the argument falls apart. Poor and working poor are much more likely to heavily depend upon roads and highways with a 10 or 20 year old vehicle, and are much more likely to be doing things like: landscaping, junk removal, painting, handyman, tree removal, etc... Many of them easily drive several hundred miles every day just within their local areas. These segments of the workforce depend heavily upon the major road and highways not all being pay per use. Their margins would be unlikely to support having to pass the additional transportation costs onto their individual customers. They generally need equipment trucks and vehicles to perform their services, so public transit would not be an option for them. The cost of taking a large number of these people either out of the workforce or reducing their possible individual market opportunities with pay per use tolls and fees would be counter-productive and increase the strain on the unsustainable social welfare system, so I'd rather keep things possible for them to work independently rather than pay for many of them to be on the dole.

I'm a but confused - are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me in regards to trying to keep a majority of our roadways toll free?

You're right the plenty of working poor rely upon roadways to get to and from work, which is what I said...

(08-01-2016 11:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 08:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It isn't ignoring that non-tollways are not truly free, it just didn't get into it. The thing is, while public roads aren't free, they are not pay-to-use, which makes a big difference. And while you're right that the truly poor do not have cars, they likely don't have jobs either (I know there are some exceptions). The thing is, there are plenty of working poor or just below the middle class people who have cars but who could likely not afford the increase in costs from tollways to get to and from their jobs. If we assume that there is some savings in privatizing infrastructure, it would have to offset the increased costs of privatization. I doubt that the reduction in taxes from privatizing infrastructure spending would offset, what $750 of someone's tax burden that is making $30k per year? That would be a total tax decrease of 2.5% of their annual income, yet transportation spending, on the whole, makes up less than 2.5% of our total federal spending in 2015 (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budge...pending/). That's also assuming that they would spend $3 in tolls each day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year. Because more, and more, the working poor in urban areas are being priced out of the area they work (e.g. in Houston, the Inner Loop) they become more reliant on their own cars or public transportation. If they rely on public transportation, their commute increases to help decrease their costs, but, should we as a society avoid making that a a necessary decision?
Also, the thing you may be accidentally ignoring is that infrastructure is more than just highways. It is water treatment facilities, dams, bridges, and so much more. As a society, where do we want to fall in regards to providing these public goods and services? Do we want every person to pay "their fair share" as so many politicians put it, of do we need to ask those who are thriving to assist those who are not because a society functions best when their is less need for basic goods?
And with regard to inefficiencies, are you sure that is where it lies? That sounds good on paper and theory, but in reality, is that really the case?

First, I'm not ignoring--accidentally, intentionally, or otherwise--anything, least of all that infrastructure consists of much more then highways. I made a large part of my living in that area for 30+ years, so I'm well aware. I'm also well aware that much of that other infrastructure is funded on a user fee basis, generally costing far more per person than the toll fees you reference.

I find it interesting that those who lean left, as you appear to do, love to toss around the "pay their fair share" line to insist that the "rich" should pay more for everything, particularly taxes, but want to drop it like a hot potato whenever not turns out that they may already be paying more than their fair share. If you compare us to Europe, the "rich" and corporations are paying far more here than there. Europe's tax structures are less "progressive." They all have "regressive" consumption taxes. They pay for a lot of things with user fees, in particular toll roads, that are paid by taxes here. And they end up with more equitable dispersions of income and wealth. By the way, as to the argument that the reason the "rich" pay more here is because they have more unequal incomes, when you adjust for that, the amount by which their percentage of the tax burden exceeds their percentage of income is still greater here than in Europe.

What Europe does have is a welfare after net based on putting a floor under everybody rather than such a heavy emphasis redistribution. That's where I would go. Put a floor under everybody and then make all people pay their "fair share" above that.

As for whether I'm certain that's where the inefficiencies lie, for a large portion, absolutely so. I've worked with just about every government bureaucracy, from military to Medicare to FDIC to EPA to PUC to Railroad Commission to FERC to OSHA to you name it, and that's exactly what I saw over and over. Whenever funding is dissociated from use, inefficiencies spring up all over the place. The profit motive is the greatest tool for driving efficiency ever known to mankind.

This isn't the main part of your comment, but I want to address it. I cringe every time someone on the left in politics talks about "paying their fair share." It's a crappy argument that just makes people angry. I thought that my general aversion was obvious by what I stated in the previous response, especially since I was intentionally re-framing the situation.

I wrote: Do we want every person to pay "their fair share" as so many politicians put it, of do we need to ask those who are thriving to assist those who are not because a society functions best when their is less need for basic goods?

I used the quotes because those are not my words, but words of politicians that don't understand that the wealthiest individuals in the country, regardless of the percent of income they are paying, are already paying a very large amount of money in taxes. That's why I wrote the second part of the sentence and re-framed the situation, because at some point, IMO, we are going to need to ask someone to foot the bill for what we spend on a daily basis. At some point, significant segments of the population will need to make sacrifices, and doesn't it make the most sense to ask those who can afford it the most to be the ones who make the sacrifices first?

Back to your policy - so it sounds like you would be for a universal income?

(08-01-2016 12:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 11:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that those who lean left, as you appear to do, love to toss around the "pay their fair share" line to insist that the "rich" should pay more for everything, particularly taxes, but want to drop it like a hot potato whenever not turns out that they may already be paying more than their fair share. If you compare us to Europe, the "rich" and corporations are paying far more here than there.

This isn't the main part of your comment, but I want to address it. I cringe every time someone on the left in politics talks about "paying their fair share." It's a crappy argument that just makes people angry. I thought that my general aversion was obvious by what I stated in the previous response, especially since I was intentionally re-framing the situation.

I wrote: Do we want every person to pay "their fair share" as so many politicians put it, of do we need to ask those who are thriving to assist those who are not because a society functions best when their is less need for basic goods?

I used the quotes because those are not my words, but words of politicians that don't understand that the wealthiest individuals in the country, regardless of the percent of income they are paying, are already paying a very large amount of money in taxes. That's why I wrote the second part of the sentence and re-framed the situation, because at some point, IMO, we are going to need to ask someone to foot the bill for what we spend on a daily basis. At some point, significant segments of the population will need to make sacrifices, and doesn't it make the most sense to ask those who can afford it the most to be the ones who make the sacrifices first?

I can see your point, and it has merit to me. What I have never understood about those who lean left is the seeming near-total aversion to financial common sense and discipline when it comes to reducing spending and size of government. In fact, many leaders on the right have been equally as guilty in expanding the size and cost of government in theri actions and votes if not their rhetoric.

At some point, I believe we have to admit that government, no matter the supposed good behind the program, will not solve all our problems. It is a misplaced faith that to me is the fundamental reason I am so opposed to most liberal policies. While I do agree that much needs to be done, I heartily disagree that additional government expansion, programs or spending is the answer. In my opinion, less government and more personal responsibility (and much more official accountability) is what we need instead.

(08-01-2016 12:57 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 12:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 11:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting that those who lean left, as you appear to do, love to toss around the "pay their fair share" line to insist that the "rich" should pay more for everything, particularly taxes, but want to drop it like a hot potato whenever not turns out that they may already be paying more than their fair share. If you compare us to Europe, the "rich" and corporations are paying far more here than there.

This isn't the main part of your comment, but I want to address it. I cringe every time someone on the left in politics talks about "paying their fair share." It's a crappy argument that just makes people angry. I thought that my general aversion was obvious by what I stated in the previous response, especially since I was intentionally re-framing the situation.

I wrote: Do we want every person to pay "their fair share" as so many politicians put it, of do we need to ask those who are thriving to assist those who are not because a society functions best when their is less need for basic goods?

I used the quotes because those are not my words, but words of politicians that don't understand that the wealthiest individuals in the country, regardless of the percent of income they are paying, are already paying a very large amount of money in taxes. That's why I wrote the second part of the sentence and re-framed the situation, because at some point, IMO, we are going to need to ask someone to foot the bill for what we spend on a daily basis. At some point, significant segments of the population will need to make sacrifices, and doesn't it make the most sense to ask those who can afford it the most to be the ones who make the sacrifices first?

I can see your point, and it has merit to me. What I have never understood about those who lean left is the seeming near-total aversion to financial common sense and discipline when it comes to reducing spending and size of government. In fact, many leaders on the right have been equally as guilty in expanding the size and cost of government in theri actions and votes if not their rhetoric.

At some point, I believe we have to admit that government, no matter the supposed good behind the program, will not solve all our problems. It is a misplaced faith that to me is the fundamental reason I am so opposed to most liberal policies. While I do agree that much needs to be done, I heartily disagree that additional government expansion, programs or spending is the answer. In my opinion, less government and more personal responsibility (and much more official accountability) is what we need instead.

I'd argue that plenty of those on the left do not believe that government can solve all of our problems, and that they also believe that being personally responsible is important. To many on the left, it is not an aversion to fiscal responsibility, they view government as a tool for improvement and whose costs are worth it. They rally for more taxes to pay for the programs they believe in. I think many believe in these government programs because, unlike private enterprise, government is inherently not profit motivated and can ideally be solely focused on outcomes. I guess the issue with that is the ideally part.

I agree with Owl69 that the best way to provide a lot of assistance to citizens by is providing a floor so that those who truly want to work and better themselves never fall into a pit so large that they can't pull themselves out of it. Things happen, and a failed business venture, medical issue, or something else they cannot control should not necessarily define someone.

I lean left because I want a government that will give tools to those who want them and may not have them due to their socio-economic status or where they live. The situation someone is born into or raised in should also not define them, which is why I generally support a more left-leaning government.

But too many on the left have turned business into a boogey man who only does bad - there are plenty of private industries that do good and do the type of work I am advocating for. I think having a mix of private/public enterprises is the best way to advocate for many causes.

(08-01-2016 01:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 12:57 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  I can see your point, and it has merit to me. What I have never understood about those who lean left is the seeming near-total aversion to financial common sense and discipline when it comes to reducing spending and size of government. In fact, many leaders on the right have been equally as guilty in expanding the size and cost of government in theri actions and votes if not their rhetoric.

At some point, I believe we have to admit that government, no matter the supposed good behind the program, will not solve all our problems. It is a misplaced faith that to me is the fundamental reason I am so opposed to most liberal policies. While I do agree that much needs to be done, I heartily disagree that additional government expansion, programs or spending is the answer. In my opinion, less government and more personal responsibility (and much more official accountability) is what we need instead.

I'd argue that plenty of those on the left do not believe that government can solve all of our problems, and that they also believe that being personally responsible is important. To many on the left, it is not an aversion to fiscal responsibility, they view government as a tool for improvement and whose costs are worth it. They rally for more taxes to pay for the programs they believe in. I think many believe in these government programs because, unlike private enterprise, government is inherently not profit motivated and can ideally be solely focused on outcomes. I guess the issue with that is the ideally part.

I agree with Owl69 that the best way to provide a lot of assistance to citizens by is providing a floor so that those who truly want to work and better themselves never fall into a pit so large that they can't pull themselves out of it. Things happen, and a failed business venture, medical issue, or something else they cannot control should not necessarily define someone.

I lean left because I want a government that will give tools to those who want them and may not have them due to their socio-economic status or where they live. The situation someone is born into or raised in should also not define them, which is why I generally support a more left-leaning government.

But too many on the left have turned business into a boogey man who only does bad - there are plenty of private industries that do good and do the type of work I am advocating for. I think having a mix of private/public enterprises is the best way to advocate for many causes.

I think I understand what you are saying. You think the costs of larger government are worth it. I look at the same results and strongly disagree. But I don't necessarily disagree with the outcomes which I believe we both more or less commonly want. Only the method of getting there is a point of contention.

Moreover, the revenue and fiscal setting is not neutral. It is one thing to start from a balanced budget and zero debt position and feel we should spend more. We are definitely far, far removed from that level of equilibrium, which both the left and the right often just ignore. Debt threatens our country, security and way of life.

Please understand that I actually want many of the same things you do. I don't understand why it is hard to see that there are other answers to help people who do not have opportunity.

The part of the government that works best, and should be strengthened, are the non-profit rules that allow opportunities for those disadvantaged people to be helped. Instead I see a government that seems to be against so many of the nonprofits that can and could help by acting resentful of the revenue the government 'loses' to them, by imposing increasingly onerous restrictions and regulation on them that cause them to be less effective and innovative and to have to spend an increasingly inordinate amount of their time and resources on fulfilling government reporting and regulation requirements which get more complex every year.

Also, government appears extremely resentful with the affiliations that are in many cases the cause of people wanting to help others, namely, religious reasons. I think that is a big mistake. You can encourage religion without favoring specific ones, which I think is what the separation of church and state was really all about. The fact that this principle was twisted into being anti-religion has caused much needless harm in our society.

I don't see anything that prevents someone form helping another that ever larger government is the one and only major solution to. If anything, this area is one where government need to use its taxing ability to encourage those with the gold to spend both the personal time and money. I don't think everyone who is super-wealthy (the 1%) would turn away from the opportunity to use their money to help other people. The catch is they demand major input and autonomy into that help. They resent the govt just taking away with no input, so they work very hard to avoid that, and I don't blame them one bit because their behavior is totally rational. I believe most would rather be incentivized to help others on their own terms than to have to fork over taxes blindly to govt officials and not be able to participate in outcomes. I believe you can help all disadvantaged people who we are both concerned about, without government programs. To me, tax rules should be used to reduce government revenue at every opportunity in favor of incentivising individuals with wealth to do the helping themselves. with minimal government interference.

Finally, the bias among many on the left against the profit motive defies me. This country itself would not have existed if not for the profit motive. Most great human undertakings in history have been tied to the profit motive in one way or another. The reason explorers were able to finance their journeys in the first place was the lure of profit motive to make money. To me, when I encounter the anti-profit, anti-business sentiment, which seems to be a foundation of the modern-day left, it is completely irrational. risk deserves the opportunity of reward. To me that is fundamental.

I agree government should set the rules, and strive for equality and fairness of opportunity. I strongly disagree with govt choosing or guaranteeing outcomes, which is the biggest problem of modern leftist policy and governing. All this does is breed incredible resentment, and further motivates those who disagree to seek ways around, which they always find, no matter how much the regulators try.

Govt should also enforce the rules equally and make sure they apply to all officials and leaders, which it does not, and this is getting way worse than usual these days. And govt itself should never be immune from accountability which, even down to the local city and county prosecutor level, it has made itself (one of the worst Supreme Court decisions, imo. No thanks, Clarence Thomas, you got that one waaaaay wrong a few years ago.)

Back to the presidential election - thoughts on this?

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7b3796947...-be-rigged

To me, this is a very dangerous road to go down when there is no evidence to suggest the national election is going to be rigged.

(08-02-2016 10:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Back to the presidential election - thoughts on this?

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7b3796947...-be-rigged

To me, this is a very dangerous road to go down when there is no evidence to suggest the national election is going to be rigged.

Seems a little early for him to start saying stuff like this. Figured he would begin the excuses in October, a few weeks before the election.

(08-02-2016 01:49 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 10:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Back to the presidential election - thoughts on this?

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7b3796947...-be-rigged

To me, this is a very dangerous road to go down when there is no evidence to suggest the national election is going to be rigged.

Seems a little early for him to start saying stuff like this. Figured he would begin the excuses in October, a few weeks before the election.

yeah, there is no basis to think the Dems might try to pull a few dirty tricks. They never have and never will. Just ask Bernie.

(08-02-2016 01:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 01:49 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(08-02-2016 10:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Back to the presidential election - thoughts on this?

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7b3796947...-be-rigged

To me, this is a very dangerous road to go down when there is no evidence to suggest the national election is going to be rigged.

Seems a little early for him to start saying stuff like this. Figured he would begin the excuses in October, a few weeks before the election.

yeah, there is no basis to think the Dems might try to pull a few dirty tricks. They never have and never will. Just ask Bernie.

Presidential candidates should not be throwing out conspiracy theory accusations prior to an election when there is absolutely NO evidence to provide. All he is doing is prepping his supporters to protest an election regardless of whether or not there are real concerns over its legitimacy. What Trump is doing now is third-world politics at best.

And regarding Bernie, the DNC supporting one candidate over the other is monumentally different than tampering with an election or rigging it.

OO, do you think what Trump did is a good idea? And if so, why is it a good idea?

Trump just refused to support Ryan and McCain in their primaries.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...eakingnews

I'm not even sure how to comment on that.

(08-02-2016 10:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Back to the presidential election - thoughts on this?

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7b3796947...-be-rigged

To me, this is a very dangerous road to go down when there is no evidence to suggest the national election is going to be rigged.

Yep, holding the nose and voting for Trump is not easy, no doubt. he's a less than perfect candidate, and definitely a political neophyte. Most career politicians have long since gotten these kinds of comments behind them in smaller races many years ago. trump is anything but a career politician and it shows.

Both Hiliary and Trump are full of hot air and more, no doubt. Difference seems to be, Trump speaks off the cuff, doesn't take himself too seriously, and is basically posturing. Not always fun to watch, but more understandable and far more harmless than Hiliary.

Hiliary's lying, doublespeak and ludicrous statements, unlike Trumps, are far more dangerous and insidious, because she has shown herself to be a calculated, secretive, power-mad despot-in-waiting who will stop at nothing to get what she wants. She has been plotting for years to carry out her agenda, and everyone else be damned, as she cares for them not in the end.

Trump's gonna be a goof, we all know that. But he is not insidiously pathological, and I really believe Hiliary is. I tried with all my might to watch her DNC speech. I felt i needed to hear at least what she said on that night for an hour. I found I had to keep turning away after small bits and chunks. I kept tuning in and out because she comes across as such a transparently despicable individual. As the evening dragged on, her speech grew more and more tyrannical, and her expression more and more crazed. I actually feel pity for her, as the woman needs major mental help.

I can deal with Trump's goofiness and off the cuff personality. He's a salesman, in the end, and like it or not, that is a part of the personality. Hiliary is a true danger, one that comes along only once or twice in a generation: apocalyptic.

I dislike Obama but even with him my thought was he could help do some good for race relations and attitudes. While that has been proven to be the opposite of true, and things are much worse now than before in that area, I don't think even Obama posed the threat to the country that Hiliary is and does. We are not safe with Hiliary in the White House. We are worse with Hiliary, weaker with Hilary, backward with Hiliary. The woman has not one redeeming quality I can readily see. I cannot vote for a worse America, and Hiliary, and Hilary alone means a much worse America.

Trump is a gamble, but there is plenty of upside to Trump as president. At this point I'm willing to take the gamble. Hiliary is drawing dead, with zero upside and only tragedy awaiting. I just can't vote for that.

Stupid party versus evil party has given us crazy candidate versus corrupt klepto criminal candidate.

Who would have thunk it?

Not so bold prediction: Julian Assange will prove to be kingmaker for the U.S. presidential election.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...icity.html

(08-02-2016 05:01 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Not so bold prediction: Julian Assange will prove to be kingmaker for the U.S. presidential election.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...icity.html

I'm all for exposing this information, but darn it, couldn't he have done it BEFORE the primaries, so there was at least a chance to select a different candidate from the DNC if there is indisputable proof of misdeeds?

Define "gaudy."

A picture is worth a 1000 words....

This is hilarious: https://m.reddit.com/r/DonaldandHobbes/?...mpact=true

(08-04-2016 07:28 AM)Antarius Wrote:  This is hilarious: https://m.reddit.com/r/DonaldandHobbes/?...mpact=true

The past is prologue:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comi...years-ago/

A sports-minded friend suggested this analogy: this election is like having to choose between Lance Armstrong and Charles Barkley for Sportsman of the Decade.

Like many analogies, it misses as much as it hits. Still, I thought it was fairly clever. Plus, it triggers the obvious question: who would other political celebrities be?
Gary Johnson
Tim Kaine
Mike Pence
Joe Biden

Interesting, Rice's own George P. backs Trump. That's a bit surprising, given how nasty things got between Trump and his dad.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/07/politics/g...index.html