Yes they do...but Man doesn't change them. He can't. They change him. We can't stop tornadoes or make them. We can only run from them, or hunker down and hope they pass without wiping us out along with everything around us.
Yes nothing to see here...the MSM does not have a negative slant towards Trump
- Thread starter rog1187
- Start date
Yes they do...but Man doesn't change them. He can't. They change him. We can't stop tornadoes or make them. We can only run from them, or hunker down and hope they pass without wiping us out along with everything around us.
Wait....is it going to fixed by Pelosi and Ryan and company in hard hats pouring concrete and the like? It has to flow through government on some level, doesn't it?
My point was that political policy changes as the environment changes. Kennedy's attitudes towards policy today would have to consider changes in the political environment as well (terrorism, climate change, etc..). The point being, it's a fool that thinks they can pluck someone from a point in history and know how they would react to the current environment.
But, and I'm thinking your heading off on another creation tangent here, if you think man doesn't change his environment....you're simply blind to history.
That's the way it's done now...they're collecting the money. But who says they (politicians) have to be involved at all? If private companies are doing the work, and spending the resources why can't the private market handle the funding?
The pols only gum it up getting their palms greased with cut outs and set asides and favors for their friends.
Man adapts to changes in the enviroment boom, he doesn't change the environment itself. He can't. We don't have that capability. The systems and forces that produce our weather and subsequent environment happen without our permission or request. We have ZERO control over any of it...including how the earth spins on its axis around the Sun which is the most dominant force "changing" our climate.
Last edited:
For the record, I'm largely an ABC guy......why they're not listed here, I don't know.......and therefore watch essentially no CNN, NBC, CBS (nor read any of the listed rags). So, I won't vouch for anything they report (or don't report).
But assuming for a moment these are legitimate statistics, is anyone out there really trying to dispute them ?? Believe me, there's nobody out there who dislikes Trump more passionately and thoroughly than yours truly.......though far more as a man (and for his methods of communicating) than because of his current political beliefs......but even I wouldn't even attempt to do that.
Of course, it can be......just as liberalism can be equally extreme. But it's not.....and never has been, in my estimation.....about the respective political beliefs themselves; it's always about the individual(s) screaming their respective position (and off which rooftop).
I'm confused then I guess. Are we selling off our interstates now? Are we selling off our bridges? Otherwise, I'm not sure how the private sector covers funding
I had zero issues on how Obama handled himself. You are missing the point of this thread. The fact is that the media never went after Obama even on some of his controversial moves.....they reported it and moved on. They attack Trump as soon as he looks cross eyed at someone.
Oh please! Trump entire MO is to make war. He has done if from Day 1 of the beginning of his primary campaign. To act like he's being picked on is ridiculous. He constantly promotes and provokes conflict.
What world are you living in? He may love conflict but the media attacks every thing he does way beyond his tweets and provocations. Like I said they would call for his impeachment if he pissed in the wrong urinal. He HAS been doing it from day one....one would think the media would take it as his MO......And what has that to do with presenting ALLEGED issues as FACT even though they have no FACTS to back it up? Since you are a fairly sharp person you also may have noticed their LACK of the word ALLEGEDLY
What the hell do you mean? His birth location was questioned. How much validity do you need of a man that looks different from you? Damn, he was hounded on that one subject for years. Why?
boom remember when we built Mon county ball park? They used something called Tax increment bond financing...raising bonds in the private sector through tax incentives for developers which will be repaid by increased economic activity and enhanced assets around the ballpark like shopping malls, hotels etc.
Trump has in fact talked about some sort of a public private partnership for this funding. Government money issued as seed to spur other investors with vested interests in the projects. The private sector ends up doing the work, why can't they be responsible for the funding too?
Now to be sure, you cannot tax them (companies) at 35 and 40% on their earnings, and tax them with crazy sky high property tax assessments too and expect them to pay for infrastructure on this type of scale, but the whole idea is to help them grow with these enhancements that they would both pay for and benefit from by self funding, and they'd get huge tax breaks as a replacement for sticking the taxpayers with that massive bill.
Last edited:
Still doesn't make sense. For the most part we are talking about rebuilding bridges that are falling apart
All I'm saying boom is that if bridges are an asset to the users (us) why not really let us collect on improving them by using creative financing to really pay back our investments in them? The Government is not the only way raise money for capital improvement projects. If we all benefit from improving roads and bridges, why shouldn't we have a stake in that investment?
Couldn't we use our "contributions" to raise money in the private equity markets for this specific type of construction that would not only provide funding for private enterprise to complete it, but repay tax payers through dividends for the improvements?
The bonds sold to raise construction capital for Monongalia county ballpark are being repaid through increased economic activity and service enhancements around the area like improved access to the interstate etc. Taxpayers weren't stuck with a huge tax bill, and the county (taxpayers) actually benefit from the additional revenues generated that are not only paying off the bonds, but improving economic activity in that entire area.
We could use that same concept for our airports, roads and bridges, bringing in private industry, investors, and the general public who could purchase low cost high yield Federal construction bonds that would be paid back in much the same way tax free municipal bonds are repaid to investors when capital improvement funds are needed by local municipalities to fund their needed public works projects.
Ummm....we use the bridges, we pay taxes to build and maintain the bridges. I'm not sure what else there is in this transaction, short of private ownership and tolls.
For added structures that provide substantial enhancement to a certain area...maybe. To rebuild existing bridges close to being unsafe? Not sure how that would work
I see this funding alternative boomer as both a way to raise more capital to do bigger and better infrastructure for we taxpayers...and perhaps even pay us back in the form of cash dividends on our "investments". I'm all for growing the private sector that generates the wealth instead of sending it off to Government where it is either wasted or ends up in a useless pile of debt that returns no value to the taxpayers, but rather just eats into their earning power.
Ok. Sure. I just want safe roadways and bridges for my kids. However we get there is fine by me, let's just make sure the budget is balanced.....right or left. I didn't like Newt, but he and Bill had a balanced budget!
I'm not really talking about private ownership boom, but private/public participation in raising the capital needed to improve the infrastructure we all use and benefit from. I my opinion it's only a one way street now. With private business and the taxpaying public simply having the funding confiscated from them and no say in how the money is invested and no return on the investments.
Opening up that funding mechanism to the free market places competition for those dollars into play, provides incentive to both lower costs and gain favorable ROI, as well as more efficiently meet the needs because dollars will flow to those projects with the highest needs and greatest economic impact.
As value is added to the economic activity generated by infrastructure improvements, the economy grows producing more revenue to fund better improvements and keep business and private enterprise flourishing.
I'm all for growing private markets boom....the bigger the markets the less need for Government, and the less need for big Government, the less pressure for income redistribution which only flows one way. From taxpayers into wasteful programs designed only to keep politicians in power who use OPM (taxpayers)to hand out favors and carve out even more power for themselves to redistribute even more OPM (other people's money)