Question for conservatives about government spending

[SniperFire]

Why wouldn't the free market do a better job at highways?

Why do you ask?

Why wouldn't the free market do a better job at highways?

You started the thread. Are you just here to troll?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why would you ask such assholish questions?

Why wouldn't the free market do a better job at highways?

They do. One example is route 125 is southern California. Funded privately, this highway is far superior to any other in the state.

So you would support it if the government decided to sell off all the roads and highways to free market profiteers?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why do you ask?

Why wouldn't the free market do a better job at highways?

You started the thread. Are you just here to troll?

Why wouldn't the free market do a better job at highways?

 

[eflatminor]

Why wouldn't the free market do a better job at highways?

They do. One example is route 125 is southern California. Funded privately, this highway is far superior to any other in the state.

So you would support it if the government decided to sell off all the roads and highways to free market profiteers?

Absofuckinglutely. You have absolutely no concept of how capitalism works. None. If you're intellectually capable, you should read Hayek, Mises and maybe Friedman. There is a whole other world outside of your nanny state central planners, one that actually works. If you are not as closed minded as you appear here, try to see the other side of the coin. It will make for far more interesting discussions if nothing else.

 

[Katzndogz]

Really? How many roads have made it into the Fortune 500?

Are roads taxed on their earnings like people? What does a road spend its money on, anyway? Making itself look good to other roads?

You can't possibly be as stupid as you seem... or perhaps you're exactly why motor oil containers have language stating "This is not a food product" on them.

Do you have any actual arguments as to why the road system is best left to big government or are you just going to call me stupid?

Only some of the roads are left to big government. Maintenance of interstate highways is a function of the federal government.

Local roads still get maintained by states or cities.

 

[PredFan]

How much did I-10 earn this year?

Every time you type you show your stupidity.

You're the one that said roads earned money. I simply asked how much one of them earned. So how much did I -10 earn last year?

See?

 

[PredFan]

OohPooPahDoo is certainly stupid, but I have to give points for persistance.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

They do. One example is route 125 is southern California. Funded privately, this highway is far superior to any other in the state.

So you would support it if the government decided to sell off all the roads and highways to free market profiteers?

Absofuckinglutely.

Finally, a right winger with a consistent viewpoint!

You have absolutely no concept of how capitalism works. None.

You think? Quiz me!

If you're intellectually capable, you should read Hayek, Mises and maybe Friedman. There is a whole other world outside of your nanny state central planners, one that actually works. If you are not as closed minded as you appear here, try to see the other side of the coin. It will make for far more interesting discussions if nothing else.

Oh, well I'll definitely have to do everything you tell me, especially since you've been so nice.

Its been so nice to talk to you Mr. Smug Faced Armchair Economics Guru Wanna-Be.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Every time you type you show your stupidity.

You're the one that said roads earned money. I simply asked how much one of them earned. So how much did I -10 earn last year?

See?

Did you say that roads earn money?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You can't possibly be as stupid as you seem... or perhaps you're exactly why motor oil containers have language stating "This is not a food product" on them.

Do you have any actual arguments as to why the road system is best left to big government or are you just going to call me stupid?

Only some of the roads are left to big government. Maintenance of interstate highways is a function of the federal government.

Local roads still get maintained by states or cities.

Oh right, and states and cities I guess are immune from big government?

 

[PredFan]

You're the one that said roads earned money. I simply asked how much one of them earned. So how much did I -10 earn last year?

See?

Did you say that roads earn money?

Again. Every time you post you show your stupidity. There really is no point in trying to use logic with you. You cannot grasp the concept.

I'd rather just watch you make a fool of yourself.

 

[bripat9643]

Why should government pay for a road that starts at the end of your driveway and leads to any address in the continental United States - but not for food stamps for needy families with children?


Is it simply because you derive a direct benefit from one and not the other?

It shouldn't pay for either, dipstick.

Furthermore, it doesn't pay for the road to your doorstep. The developer pays for that.

 

[bripat9643]

ah the love of their fellow man from the rights perspective

The left's way of showing love for his fellow man is to loot him and enslave him.

 

[bripat9643]

First off, government doesn't pay for anything, taxpayers pay for things... government produces nothing. It's a policy matter. Most people have no problem with tax money going to help the needy, just with government policies that continually create more and more needy that then must be "taken care of". Not to mention, "taken care of" runs the gamut from free cell phones to food.

I do have a problem with government taking money from my pocket and giving it to anyone. I don't care how needy they are. Unless I choose where the money goes, it's robbery.

You aren't going to win the battle against socialism when you concede its fundamental moral premises.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

FOR THE RECORD

If the governments decided to sell off all their highway and road assets to private investors (and use the proceeds to pay down their debt) - I'd be 100% OK with it.


You might ask - why would a liberal support that?

Its pretty simple. The governments' (I mean all levels) subsidization of infrastructure targeted for primary (and near exclusive in most cases) use by private passenger vehicles and freight transportation by truck favors one particular mode of transportation, giving that mode an artificial market advantage. I believe our resident economics genius, eflatminor, would agree that is the case.

Its my belief that if it were up to the market entirely to determine which mode was best, private auto-mobile transport would fall behind and more efficient modes of transportation would become more prevalent. These modes - from the simple economies of scale that you get from buses as opposed to private cares - all the way up to full life-style changes where people place a higher priority on being located closer to work to enable them to walk or bike - are not only more economically efficient, they are better for the environment.

So there you have it. A liberal that can't see why big government needs to meddle so much in the transportation market.


EDIT: Once we take away the artificial advantage in the market given to passenger vehicles, we can also eliminate other "green" subsidy programs, as these programs won't be needed once the market is levelled for ALL modes of transport.

 

[bripat9643]

And the free market is incapable of providing the roads that private enterprise needs for trade? why do you have such little confidence in capitalism?

The market is perfectly capable of providing roads, and it frequently does. However, there's no point in building a road when the government has already expropriated the funds and built one.

 

[bripat9643]

If you own a grocery store or a farm, you absolutely want both roads and food stamps.

Wrong. People have to eat, whether they use food stamps or not. Only fools approve of destructive government programs just because there business happens to benefit in the short run.

 

[bripat9643]

I actually agree with that.

FOR THE RECORD

If the governments decided to sell off all their highway and road assets to private investors (and use the proceeds to pay down their debt) - I'd be 100% OK with it.


You might ask - why would a liberal support that?

Its pretty simple. The governments' (I mean all levels) subsidization of infrastructure targeted for primary (and near exclusive in most cases) use by private passenger vehicles and freight transportation by truck favors one particular mode of transportation, giving that mode an artificial market advantage. I believe our resident economics genius, eflatminor, would agree that is the case.

Its my belief that if it were up to the market entirely to determine which mode was best, private auto-mobile transport would fall behind and more efficient modes of transportation would become more prevalent. These modes - from the simple economies of scale that you get from buses as opposed to private cares - all the way up to full life-style changes where people place a higher priority on being located closer to work to enable them to walk or bike - are not only more economically efficient, they are better for the environment.

So there you have it. A liberal that can't see why big government needs to meddle so much in the transportation market.


EDIT: Once we take away the artificial advantage in the market given to passenger vehicles, we can also eliminate other "green" subsidy programs, as these programs won't be needed once the market is levelled for ALL modes of transport.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If you own a grocery store or a farm, you absolutely want both roads and food stamps.

Wrong. People have to eat, whether they use food stamps or not. Only fools approve of destructive government programs just because there business happens to benefit in the short run.

And if they don't have the money to eat what do you think they will do about it?

 

[bripat9643]

If you own a grocery store or a farm, you absolutely want both roads and food stamps.

Wrong. People have to eat, whether they use food stamps or not. Only fools approve of destructive government programs just because there business happens to benefit in the short run.

And if they don't have the money to eat what do you think they will do about it?

They'll find money to eat. No one ever starved in this country. If you dispute that, then produce evidence of anyone ever dying of starvation in America.