|
| Thread: Multibillion-dollar stimulus for roads, not solutions? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
posted December 08, 2009 08:57 PM |
|
|
Multibillion-dollar stimulus for roads, not solutions?
what is this like the 5th in the last few years? I mean bailout and stimulus.
Insanity = lets do it again this time it will work better. However the point here is a bit deeper than simply saying
I dont follow the dates of all of these handouts. I dont have to to see what looks like fail involved though. Creating jobs? Maybe if it was a money maker but more roads is a money SINK. It is a long term project, and it is a temporary project that will end like a fiends last one on the pipe. The most they could do to pay back these lenders is make tolls. After, the construction is complete the toll opportunities are possible.
How does temporary work ultimately benefit compared to the cost? Some more people will be spending money to fuel a systems key sources of operation.
As we ignore many better things like fuel options that we KNOW are possible, clean and self replenishing, we simply produce more highway options.
Make a road?
I am so happy to be leaving this country but the world is still a problem. I do not want kids because i see lack of hope building.. A hole, is building. This world being polluted while more environmental options are brushed under the carpet, to fund the people originating based on deception and political ties between big wigs and the involvement of a lumberyard owner who happened to own a major news paper who would lose everything.. These people shook hands and it did not take long for the population to believe everything they said. They were more impressionable then, yet I have a feeling if this same government run by a new age of people told us the truth we would believe it openly as the alternatives = cheaper, cleaner, and self replenishing.
It is kind of disgusting that the resource of HEMP with no THC is frowned upon. A frown passed down from the past decades. It is disgusting and ironic that with this resource and so many other options like research and self sustaining work, they make roads?
Please someone justify making roads in a non biased way. I find it hard to see the positive in this stimulus but I have pointed it out. However, even the positives end with this:
These Jobs are temporary
The money even though going through people will be disbursed in short time to the people who sell energy and other key elements to the sustainable of our economy, even though much of this is pollution and the solutions are neglected.
Not to go off on a hemp rampage but HEMP is not a drug, which is besides the point anyways. It was once a major backbone and was not frowned upon. They developed a car 100% if not close to it, created out of hemp products that took 10 times the impact to get a dent, from what the metal car was just about demolished with. AND this car ran on Hemp based fuel. Hemp is richest plant based protein. Replaces metal, plastic, glass, fabrics, foods, fuels, it replaces the carbon dioxide it consumes to grow back into the air if it is burned. The harvested plant can be replenished in 6 months time. Soap, rope which is very very strong. Some say there are many thousands of uses of this non toxic resource. I would have to say there are such thousands but the basic resource replacement productions can of course be processed into the very same things that these toxic and non biodegradable resources can be processed into.
And this stuff is not permitted for commercialization or distribution.
The government is either way to stupid to see what they are doing, or are manipulating us in ways we cannot understand at this time.
Are they laundering this money somehow into other countries money?
Are they trying to fuel the bank accounts of those in power of the main filtration process to find the future Yes-Men? (For instance senate and presidents)
If I am wrong put me in my place, thanks.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
posted December 08, 2009 09:09 PM |
|
|
i dont remember if it consumes and or outputs which carbon.. (dioxide, monoxide, whatever) but basically what it takes it replenishes as an adequate fuel being burned.
Is this a taste of hell? This world, and the people who have so much influence in it are bringing an inevitable devastation to us VS their making better decisions.
I know I have said what can be interpreted as dont blame america, but what I really mean is the americans have no control and most of us do not see the problems
One of the last main protests of the people directly to the government were gassed.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 09:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
These Jobs are temporary
but the roads aren't. Don't you think they would get used after they're built?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 09:29 PM |
|
|
um i see your point but how does it help in any other way besides a luxury type production?
If the country is heading towards a critical status it would be nice if there was something a bit productive than a road constructed even when there is projected time limits on how many more years this fuel will be more than a rare commodity?
I dont see how we are benefiting our future. And the only way we benefit our present situation is by providing temporary jobs for a major construction that will not increase any revenue beyond slight conservation of standard fuels, and decreasing some traffic
This may not matter but it is at least interesting, the money spent to use these constructed roads will be on cars and fuel. That fuel is imported, for the most part. There is more than likely a hefty profit today even after those gas companies made billions or something when gas prices were high.
i know i know, there is no connection. Cant be.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 09:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
These Jobs are temporary
but the roads aren't. Don't you think they would get used after they're built?
"General maintenance", i guess 5% of the workforce will get a job afterwards.
Well, in a long term i think they hope the rest of the 95% will.... the period of bad economics will end before they are done building the road..... you understand what i mean......
But its not a good solution anyhow, but dirty enough to maybe work.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 08, 2009 09:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"General maintenance", i guess 5% of the workforce will get a job afterwards.
Who cares about a job? I'm talking about increasing efficiency with better infrastructure. The computer put many people out of jobs, but increased efficiency of those jobs enormously.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted December 09, 2009 06:07 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 06:09, 09 Dec 2009.
|
Well, I am not as well versed as I would like on the subject..but here is my take on it. Please note, I could be wrong on the matter.
However, they may be thinking the following.
Additional roads (especially if put in key areas) will reduce traffic congestion. Which will lead to vehicles being on the road a shorter ammount of time..as there are less traffic jams. Since they are on the road a shorter ammount of time, that would lead to less polution. Less (overall) gas consumption, because those same vehicles will not be sitting idleing for the extra time they would be in a traffic jam. Finally, less wear and tear on said vehicles (again due to less idleing).
Now if it is about repairing bad road, there is a similar vein here. Rough roads can put more wear and tear on a vehicle, especially the tires..and poor tires do increase fuel consumption a minor ammount.
Even if it saves only 1 cent a vehicle a day on fuel, wear and tear, or reduces pollution by a similar small amount a day add that up over time and multiply it by the number of vehicles on the road.
So..unless I am missing something..then I fail to see how this could be a bad thing?
Edit : Also, from what I understand the money is coming from the 'bailout' stimulus package..so that means that corporations are not going to get it so that they can give outrageous bonuses to their management. Another plus right there .. if my information is accurate.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted December 09, 2009 10:48 AM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 11:01, 09 Dec 2009.
|
I think it is stupid and I dont see how it is defendable, I am open to feeling wrong however cars moving easier does not seem to address our financial issues short term at all, and hardly would help us make a scratch long term to pay this debt and solve other economic issues!
The money paid for supplies and to employees will pass hands some odd # of times. It is a temporary fix for a small fraction of the unemployed. If roads are so important, then why dont we sell our businesses and make some?
God forbid they invest in a way to save our financial issues, lets spend, so fricking cars have less traffic.
Solving traffic problems = paying off our debt huh..
I could see if there was apparent need to increase efficiency and investing in a solution to increase the nations profit margin so we become naturally more self providing of jobs and money, but roads?
There is not much similar in nature to compare to making roads. I could say increase production efficiency of some resource and it would some how be argued that less traffic is better than making more revenue.
In the meantime I still dont see recycle bins or any easy means to not waste resources in this community or the other ones in my past I have lived in. The rich fancy minority and an occasional average household has some green bin but would the government rather STFU or encourage us with motivation AND make counties make the info obvious! Lets Make more Roads. Lets not worry about metals and plastics, and other resources, lets WASTE everything, sweep solutions under the carpet, because long term projects to reduce traffic are so valuable.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted December 09, 2009 12:47 PM |
|
|
Sorry, but there is absolutely nothing the government can do 'long term' with that money that will solve anything with the economy. While putting the money into researching green technology is a good thing, and I am all for it..
Let me explain why that it will not solve the current long term problems.
Our main problem, at least in America, is multifold but I will cover a few of the basics..
1) Cost of labor. The competitors can legally get away with paying pennies, working their employees rediculously long hours in cramped conditions..and thus their 'overhead' is smaller then ours.
Green Technology will not change that..whatsoever. Except for the worse perhaps, as the cost of businesses going to this technology .. who do you think will end up paying for it. Right..the consumers.
No ammount of green technology is going to change the fact that, yes, we are currently playing on an uneven playing feild. In a perfect world if we took a pay cut, prices would reflect that, and we would be able to compete.
However, currently most of the businesses are corporations, ran by greedy people, or can not compete do to being too small. Corporations would indeed pass some of the ammount saved on, but only a FRACTION of the money saved. Prices would NOT drop drastically to compensate. Lets face it..they answer to shareholders, so the more profit they make the happier their shareholders are.
If you do not believe me, take McDonalds. Go to a McDonalds in SOME forein countries. They can pay their employees next to nothing, but the price of the goods actually INCREASE. In some countries it takes about a months salary to afford ONE sandwich.
So, unfortunately we would be making LESS, but those who are the 'haves' would be making more..and we would basically become nothing more then glorified slaves. Not that we are not like that now...because we have to work in order to feed our familys and have shelter over our heads. Currently there are more people LOOKING for jobs then there are jobs available.
Ok..so green won't solve our economy there, but surely it will help with our trade deficit. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't our biggest 'debt' to China? NOT to the countries the oil from? Like I said..yes I would LOVE for us to find renewable energy we could make here in the good ol US don't get me wrong. It would take YEARS to impliment anything green, even if we found something TODAY..which while maybe long term is good, short term is not..
Yes, I agree that the money has better uses..but here is something you may not know.
The roads of America are getting OLD. They need renewed. Of course..I don't think that the money should come from any stimulus, but from an on going thing. You know how many miles of road there are in the USA, however? Even to only renew the MAJOR ones will take YEARS. Let alone every highway, biway, back street, etc. That would take DECADES.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted December 09, 2009 01:10 PM |
|
|
You should have read the article in full, not just the beginning. Obama proposed new spending for highway and bridge construction, for small business tax cuts and for retrofitting millions of homes to make them more energy-efficient. Public spending and tax cuts are both means to boost the economy. Building infrastucture is indeed a very good long term investment in general. I don't know if it is the right method at this moment, but you clearly didn't understand the entirety of the proposed package.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted December 09, 2009 01:28 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 13:37, 09 Dec 2009.
|
clearly? maybe I just didn't care about the other more complex propositions enough to blind from the potential stupidity of sinking money into clearing up traffic. They are generally simple but more complex than making a road.
The energy solution is notable but this thread is not about the proposed energy solution. I am not an expert to deem perfection but I dont need to be an expert to say a road is not anywhere near close to a solution resolving current issues and immediate needs.
Is it?
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted December 09, 2009 01:32 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 13:56, 09 Dec 2009.
|
Quote:
Sorry, but there is absolutely nothing the government can do 'long term' with that money that will solve anything with the economy. While putting the money into researching green technology is a good thing, and I am all for it..
This is a common faith in our government? Government can do nothing to help with this.. Well they can sure make it worse, right? Maybe even not for us the next round, the kids, the next generations.
*research into new methods and technologies needing staff and supplies? Screw them lets make a road instead
*research into cost preventive road alternatives so we dont even need to consider the concept of make new ones everytime we owe trillions. Oh no, pot holes.. Lets drop a quarter tril and pass the debt on to next generations when the roads are OLD, again.
*Fuel conservation, is good, but lets be ignorant to alternatives because the guys who made reefer madness (a ridiculous movie that only the most impressionable of this time would believe) made people look down on HEMP and spread the opinion to us. They put out so much propaganda to make HEMP similar in opinion to marijuana, to take this power resource out of our lives, but screw it lets push that under the carpet some more and clear up traffic. In addition lets cut down on energy instead of using a clean and REPLENISHING alternative. With HEMP it is not just the USA that prohibits it in ways but the states both need and condemn it more than any other country on this downward spiraling planet.
I am not really caring enough to think enough to speak about possibilities to those on the webernets who refuse that governments can do something. I appreciate your concerns but enjoy your roads and your future generations having to try to solve the real economic problem from the bottom of a pit, of debt (not to mention environmental devastation we dont seem to give a **** about to make small yet influential actions)
there is no point in making someone understand how we need something, and instead we spend more of it on something that provides no general revenue, but instead a luxury that could very well be worthless, in the long run, when we cant afford fuel anymore, because we burned it away like a very selfish and idiotic generation.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 09, 2009 02:41 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 14:42, 09 Dec 2009.
|
The US simply can't afford to spend more and more and more and more momney. The democrats simply are financially irresponsible. It is time to cut government programs, not expand government programs.
Rather than making it harder for businesses to operate with such things as "Cap and Tax", mandatory health care benefits, and such they need to have policies that encourage businesses to operate in the US rather than moving all the manufacturing overseas or across the border.
There is nothing "stmulting" about running up the deficit.
Oh, there is plenty of fuel. The demoncrats should stop blocking drilling in places the US has lots of oil/oil shale and stop blocking nuclear power plants.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted December 09, 2009 03:27 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 15:29, 09 Dec 2009.
|
ya i am pretty sure the Alaska and whatever places with fuel could keep cars going like fuel is nothing for a good long time, this is true. I am glad you mention nuclear power though. Its a risky one, do not like that movie "the hills have eyes" or the reality of nuclear risk all together.
I am cool with the nuclear power plant production but I am not cool with the risk. I am glad it is not up to me and that I dont have to decide. I wont stress HEMP and other energy sources much but hemp once a main crop of the economy is completely self replenishing and clean. yet it is condemned!
It is hard to think of an analogy with spending money in such ways there is no evident substantial return for a loooooong time if ever. But I came up with a kind of related comparison. We will say many factory floors of a particular military facility are metal and cold, the heating costs are pretty bad so they put linoleum on top of the metal. Ok great a tad bit of heat conservation but its nothing in the respect of helping the issue. Perhaps worse because now there is more to maintain and the same things are done, yet a slight increase in luxury (considering the whole system put together this road is not a scratch not a dent, but a touch) has been established. (while the financial burden becomes worse immediately)
yay
____________
What are you up to
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 09, 2009 06:27 PM |
|
|
Death:
I see what you're saying about roads, but then why call it a stimulus? If it's necessary infrastructure spending, then just call it that - no need to cloak it in "creates jobs" language.
Mytical:
Quote:
If you do not believe me, take McDonalds. Go to a McDonalds in SOME forein countries. They can pay their employees next to nothing, but the price of the goods actually INCREASE. In some countries it takes about a months salary to afford ONE sandwich.
Because wages in those countries are low and McDonalds is a luxury product.
And what you said is just not true. The vast majority of the reduction in labour costs are passed down to consumers.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 09, 2009 10:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And what you said is just not true. The vast majority of the reduction in labour costs are passed down to consumers.
No, only if they don't have enough demand... but if there's demand, they're not stupid.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 09, 2009 11:07 PM |
|
|
It's true that increased demand increases prices, but it does so independently of any decreases in price. To put it in econ terms, reducing labour costs is a positive supply shock, while increasing demand is a positive demand shock. Both increase output, but increasing demand raises prices while increasing supply lowers it. Supply is held to be independent of demand.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 09, 2009 11:13 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 23:14, 09 Dec 2009.
|
Quote:
while increasing supply lowers it.
not necessarily. Especially not for monopolies.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 09, 2009 11:14 PM |
|
|
Yes, necessarily, if the firms are price-takers. I'm not aware of any important private monopolies in this day and age.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 09, 2009 11:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, necessarily, if the firms are price-takers. I'm not aware of any important private monopolies in this day and age.
The one in question, McDonalds... and of course in poorer countries. Which was the subject.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
