Gamingforce Interactive Forums
85239 35211

Go Back   Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace

Notices

Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis.
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).


Should Infrastructure be Politically Controlled?
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2007, 03:54 PM Local time: Aug 8, 2007, 03:54 PM #1 of 101
Should Infrastructure be Politically Controlled?

--------------------------------------------------
http://reason.com/news/show/121827.html

Politicians are drawn to tragedy like flies to pie. Take the Minneapolis bridge collapse. President Bush took a 10-minute helicopter fly-over of the bridge—just long enough to appear compassionate and promise to rebuild the bridge.

But you have to wonder what makes this a federal responsibility. The typical excuse is that the state can't afford such pricey projects, so it behooves the federal government to step in to help. Of course the federal government is also deeply in debt, so it's difficult to pin down exactly what "afford" actually means. Either way, Washington appears set to provide about $250 million to Minneapolis for a new bridge.

Whatever Minnesota's spending constraints, the state can apparently afford to spend hundreds of millions for corporate welfare to Carl Pohlad, the owner of the Minnesota Twins, for a new baseball stadium. Hennepin County, where the bridge is located, recently passed a new .15 percent sales tax solely to pay for Pohlad's new stadium.


...

The bridge didn't collapse because Minnesota couldn't afford to maintain it. The bridge collapsed because the state had other priorities, unrelated to the proper functions of government.

The problem isn't unique to Minnesota. If you compare the percentage of bridge deficiencies with taxes raised, you'll find that some of the highest-taxed states also have some of the worst problems with bridge maintenance. Rhode Island is in the top ten when it comes to taxes collected, and has a higher percentage of deficient bridges than any other state. Pennsylvania has taxes higher than 31 other states, and a bridge deficiency rate that is the second worst in the country. New York is number ten in taxes collected, and is one of the worst when it comes maintenance. In fact, half of the top ten-taxed states are in the bottom ten when to comes to bridge maintenance.

President Bush is now promising around $250 million for a new bridge in Minneapolis. That is considerably less than what the state gave Pohlad, and $750 million less than the state poured into its various sports stadiums. And of course, simply repairing the bridge would have cost a lot less than now having to replace it.

Even if we assume that maintaining local bridges is a federal project, the involvement of politicians means perverted priorities, and maintenance of existing infrastructure, which has no clear constituency, isn't going to rank very high.

Consider the earmark debate. As the Wall Street Journal recently editorialized, "The $250 million in emergency appropriations now flying through Congress for Minnesota is slightly more than half the amount appropriated to Alaska for the 'Bridge to Nowhere' and 'Don Young's Way,' two of the more infamous earmarks from the 2005 bill."

And here's the kicker:
Quote:
“A main problem with these earmarks is that they often supersede the more urgent repair and replacement needs identified by state and local officials." Earmarked funds often go unspent because these "vanity projects" are unwanted.

“A full five years after the 1987 transportation bill, for example, no less than 64% of its earmarked money was still unspent because states had more urgent priorities for their share of the spending. By 1997, 55% of the $6.2 billion in earmarks from the 1991 highway bill had gone unspent. We can't report the same numbers for the 1998 and 2005 highway bills because the federal Transportation Department stopped disclosing the figures, lest it embarrass Members of Congress.”
Earmarks divert spending from the necessary projects to the frivolous. The New York Times reports that in spite of historically high spending on transportation, highway funds are allocated according to "the political muscle of lawmakers, rather than dire need," which means "construction on new, politically popular roads and transit projects rather than the mundane work of maintaining the worn-out ones."

The Times adds that politicians are keen to fund politically-correct projects for transport over actual maintenance projects. This has "resulted in expensive transit systems that are not used by the vast majority of American commuters."

The chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is Representative James Oberstar, a Democrat from Minnesota. Oberstar recently bragged about bagging $12 million in funds for the state, but the New York Times notes that $10 million of that "is slated for a new 40-mile commuter rail line to Minneapolis, called the Northstar," and "the remaining $2 million is divided among a new bike and walking path and a few other projects, including highway work and interchange reconstruction."

Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) says that the political process means "that routine but important things like maintenance always get shortchanged because it's nice for somebody to cut a ribbon for a new structure."


Hans Bader at the Competitive Enterprise Institute notes that in Europe, some commentators have been posting messages at Dutch and German newspaper web sites blaming the collapse on low taxes. And C. Michael Walton of the University of Texas seems to endorse this. Walton says that the lack of maintenance was the result of "our backlash to increases in taxes." And even though Sen. Schumer correctly identified the misallocation of transportation spending, his own solution was also to call for new taxes, not for he reallocation of wasted funds.

However, the problem in Minnesota was not the result of low taxes. It's the seventh highest-taxed state in the country.

I'm personally familiar with two other bridge collapses, 1983 collapse of the Mianus Bridge, which killed three, and the 1989 collapse of the Cypress Street Viaduct in Oakland, which killed forty.

The Mianus Bridge is in Connecticut, the state with the second highest tax level in the country. And the Cypress Street Viaduct is in California, which ranks at number 12. Both collapses were maintenance related. Though an earthquake triggered the Oakland collapse, the state had neglected to fund retrofitting for the bridge for years, in favor of other projects...
--------------------------------------------------

The rest of the article features a rather elegant solution to political control of road maintenance, but I think fails to address how to create new infrastructure.


Should roads remain politically controlled in light of the tendency for pols to divert funds to pet projects? The obvious solution should be to force them out of office, but the difficulty there lies in information, which the average voter has practically none of.

America itself has one of the worst incumbency rates in the world.

If we can't trust democratic processes to force our governments to actually perform their duties, why should we entrust them with those duties?

Most amazing jew boots
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2007, 04:11 PM 2 #2 of 101
Should infrastructure be publically owned? Hell yes. the only reason government exists is to build and maintain infrastructure, to provide necessary social services (fire protection, etc) and for defense.

This is as offensive to me as asking whether we should replace our army with mercenaries.



There's nowhere I can't reach.
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2007, 04:26 PM Local time: Aug 8, 2007, 04:26 PM #3 of 101
Should infrastructure be publically owned?
Wow, you missed the question big time.

How ya doing, buddy?
knkwzrd
you know i'm ready to party because my pants have a picture of ice cream cake on them


Member 482

Level 45.24

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2007, 04:31 PM Local time: Aug 8, 2007, 03:31 PM #4 of 101
Speaking as a Canadian near the Minnesota border, I think a sports stadium in this particular case probably warrants public funds, as there really is a shitload of tourism dollars to be had from milking the Canadian MLB and NFL fans.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2007, 04:37 PM Local time: Aug 8, 2007, 04:37 PM #5 of 101
That'd have to equate to some pretty significant sales tax returns.

Nevermind the precedent it sets where team owners can extort taxpayer money by threatening to take their business to another state.

Ideally states shouldn't put up with this kinda bullshit, and owners would actually have to invest in their venues, but somebody somewhere is going to want the team bad enough to use money that isn't theirs.

I was speaking idiomatically.
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2007, 04:39 PM #6 of 101
Wow, you missed the question big time.
I answered my own question, if you notice.

I'll bite though. If your article's solution isn't privately owned infrastructure, then what is it?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2007, 04:48 PM Local time: Aug 8, 2007, 04:48 PM #7 of 101
(you could've read the article)

The solution outlined by Peron is basically a private entity owned by the public. A non-profit corporately owned infrastructure where all of the locals are considered shareholders, giving everybody a controlling interest. Tasks are determined by a board appointed by the shareholders and their decisions are voted upon by the shareholders.

Any surpluses acquired through tolls are payed back to the public by virtue of their individual ownership, and amount of use.

I guess surpluses could also be used to appropriate new infrastructure in cooperation with local government, but the shareholders would be voting on that, too.

It basically takes politics out of the equation, and since all money is acquired directly through tolls, there's no way road money can be diverted to other projects.

Quote:
Like what?
*shrug*

Here's an opinion on the collapse though:
Quote:
http://engineering.com/Library/Artic...-Viaducts.aspx
The Cypress Street Viaduct collapse disaster may have been avoided had the City of Oakland followed the repeated recommendation that the Cypress Street Viaduct be upgraded (Peterson, 1990). Earthquake engineers had suggested many times to the City of Oakland that the Viaduct should be retrofitted with the new technologies that had been developed to counteract the type of concrete breakaway that occurred during the quake. One such technology that was available, and that could have helped to inhibit that type of failure, was steel reinforcing plates that could have been retrofitted to the existing columns (Peterson, 1990). Another, lead/rubber isolators, would have minimized the vibrations the Viaduct experienced during the quake (Peterson, 1990).

It is unknown if additional reinforcement would have been effective. Due to the original design, the viaduct was susceptible to strong external driving forces matching its natural resonant frequencies. Reinforcement may have averted collapse had it been designed to counteract the effects of amplification of the seismic waves created by the soft fill of the valley floor, but the extent of amplification had not yet been realized. Also, the problem of matched resonant frequencies was unknown at the time and would not have been taken into account.
A bit more nuanced than it absolutely could've been avoided but still...

FELIPE NO

Last edited by Bradylama; Aug 8, 2007 at 04:51 PM.
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2007, 04:56 PM Local time: Aug 8, 2007, 04:56 PM #8 of 101
Quote:
I'd like an answer to my question unless the article writer just wants to use the Cypress without citing what projects were done before it. Because you know, god forbid other bridges get retrofitted first. <- This line could be proven wrong.
Uh, what projects were done before it, and if this were the case why would it have taken so long to retrofit the aqueduct, assuming that there was any intent to retrofit it in the first place?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Lord Styphon
Malevolently Mercurial


Member 3

Level 50.41

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2007, 04:59 PM Local time: Aug 8, 2007, 04:59 PM 3 #9 of 101
Originally Posted by Bradylama
It basically takes politics out of the equation
No, it takes government out of the equation. The proposed corporate entity, its board, its shareholders and its activities would still be subject to politics.

How ya doing, buddy?
Dubble
The Hero of Mouseton VS The Phantom Blot!


Member 297

Level 32.26

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2007, 05:21 PM Local time: Aug 8, 2007, 04:21 PM 2 #10 of 101
I usually don't participate in PP threads because they tend to make my head hurt, but even I have to look at this and say "You can't be for real...". What I wanna know is, what are these "other projects"? I'm the type of person where you can say you have this and this and that and all this fooferah going on, but if I don't know what these "other projects" are or if there's no proof that all these projects even exist then it just kinda seems like said authors are speaking loudly just to hear themselves talk (IE talking out of your ass). Until we get this information, its a huge hole in the argument because there's no proof that any of this is even relevant or that "said author" isn't some nut with an agenda or otherwise.

But maybe that's just me and I missed something somewhere. **rereads thread a bit more thoroughly...**

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Last edited by Dubble; Aug 8, 2007 at 05:23 PM.
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2007, 05:23 PM Local time: Aug 8, 2007, 05:23 PM #11 of 101
Quote:
What I'm saying is, your author could be talking out of his ass if he's not going to be specific about which "projects" kept the bridge from being retrofitted.
He could be, sure. However, there's another set of problems like the accessibility of such records and budgets to the public.

In any case, it can absolutely be inferred that the Viaduct retrofitting wasn't given any priority by the government.

Most amazing jew boots
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2007, 05:42 PM Local time: Aug 8, 2007, 05:42 PM #12 of 101
Well then be skeptical. It's only one part of an op/ed that concerns the politics surrounding a bridge collapse in 1989. The projects in question did not necessarily have to be unnecessary or frivolous, and if you'd notice they're not identified as such.

However, you could consider money diverted into projects whose purpose regards something other than preventing bridge collapses to be poor priorities, and it's certainly hard to argue that Oakland couldn't fund the bridge if it wanted to.

Quote:
Which puts us in another quandry. Wouldn't projects become about appeasing those people, rather than "what needs a-fixin'?"
If you're talking about new infrastructure, that's essentially how it should work already. If you're talking about basic maintenance, then all owners have an interest in maintaining their roads.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2007, 07:15 PM #13 of 101
(you could've read the article)
you're right, I could have.

Quote:
The solution outlined by Peron is basically a private entity owned by the public. A non-profit corporately owned infrastructure where all of the locals are considered shareholders, giving everybody a controlling interest. Tasks are determined by a board appointed by the shareholders and their decisions are voted upon by the shareholders.

Any surpluses acquired through tolls are payed back to the public by virtue of their individual ownership, and amount of use.

I guess surpluses could also be used to appropriate new infrastructure in cooperation with local government, but the shareholders would be voting on that, too.

It basically takes politics out of the equation, and since all money is acquired directly through tolls, there's no way road money can be diverted to other projects.
Oh, well then. I guess I'm not clear how I was mistaken when I said that infrastructure should be publically owned. Some sort of magic second government* is not public perse, no matter how many people are considered shareholders.

I don't know, Brady. I know that bad decisions were made at times, but I don't see how it would be helpful to make an entirely new concept of corporation / government that will handle a job that the government already does passibly well.

* that isn't elected or answerable to the sorts of things that government officials are answerable to! HOW COULD THIS FAIL.

Most amazing jew boots
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2007, 07:45 PM Local time: Aug 8, 2007, 07:45 PM #14 of 101
I don't see how it functions as a secondary government, since governments have police power.

Passably well isn't exactly good enough, and I particularly don't think that an avoidable bridge collapse can be considered passable. (I'm not saying this is what you're saying, you know what I mean)

It's not just bridge collapses either, general maintenance and potholes are a significant problem in many areas. If people own the roads, then they have an interest in insuring that they are being well maintained. I'd much rather own the roads in my county and keep them well maintained instead of having my city be more interested in using tax dollars for a water park. (which they're going to build in a flood zone)

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Arainach
Sensors indicate an Ancient Civilization


Member 1200

Level 26.94

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2007, 07:50 PM #15 of 101
The problem with lack of infrastructure repair isn't government inefficiency, it's people's refusal to pay the tax levels necessary for the infrastructure they want. They want something for nothing.

FELIPE NO
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2007, 08:58 PM Local time: Aug 8, 2007, 08:58 PM #16 of 101
Taxes aren't the problem, it's the appropriation of tax funds. If tax levels were a problem, Minnesota wouldn't have dropped 750,000,000 on a sports stadium for a private franchise.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2007, 09:01 PM #17 of 101
It's not just bridge collapses either, general maintenance and potholes are a significant problem in many areas. If people own the roads, then they have an interest in insuring that they are being well maintained.
They're already publically owned. If you don't have an interest in your roads now, you never will.

Jam it back in, in the dark.
BlueMikey
TREAT?!?


Member 12

Level 35.70

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2007, 11:04 PM Local time: Aug 8, 2007, 09:04 PM #18 of 101
Nevermind the precedent it sets where team owners can extort taxpayer money by threatening to take their business to another state.
Extort?

Pretty much in all cases when a state/county/city wants to put up new taxes for a stadium, the citizens have to vote for it. Anecdotally, in my state, we always seem to pass new taxes for stadiums and pass transportation funding about 25% of the time.

A non-profit corporately owned infrastructure where all of the locals are considered shareholders, giving everybody a controlling interest. Tasks are determined by a board appointed by the shareholders and their decisions are voted upon by the shareholders.
Going with my state's 25% pass rate, I bet what would happen is that the shareholders would nominate board members who would pledge to spend none of the money so that everyone just gets the tolls back in taxes.

Which means that when disaster strikes and there is no money there, then we just have to dip into federal and state funding anyway.

And what Styphon said about the non-elimination of politics.

There's nowhere I can't reach.
and Brandy does her best to understand
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2007, 04:36 AM Local time: Aug 9, 2007, 04:36 AM #19 of 101
If that would be the case, though, then there's no amount of surpluses being made since nobody is using the shitty roads. There's also the matter of having to deal with potholes and various other road erosion in the course of personal use in the meantime.

Of course, if people are still incapable of acting rationally, despite the information made available to them, how does that change the present situation where the government neglects infrastructure and expects the Federal government to bail them out?

Quote:
Extort?
Yeah, extort. As in "Give me the money or I walk."

Quote:
They're already publically owned. If you don't have an interest in your roads now, you never will.
You're familiar with the Tragedy of the Commons, right? Shepherds overgraze the common land because it interests them in the short term. The problem with the Tragedy of the Commons is precisely that, the grazing land is a Commons, not owned by the shepherd. Since the land isn't theirs, it benefits them more to graze as much as possible to derive benefit, yet if they owned the land then there's an incentive to conserve and keep the land usable in the long term.

Without any personal incentives for conservation, reasonable use has to be enforced by law.

Public ownership is the same as the Commons. Nobody actually owns the land, but they do collectively through the proxy of government. Because individuals don't have a personal stake in the land, they're more likely to abuse it.

That's not a completely fair assumption, though. So long as funding for roads is controlled by politicians, voters have to weigh their attention to road maintenance with other issues that are important to them. They also have to consider alternatives. If challengers to incumbency are perceived to be worse then the voters have to settle for the lesser evil.

In this case, so long as the infrastructure is maintained by government, voters have to consider the overall performance of government, and be forced to accept conditions according to what they view to be a better-than-other scenario.

In the case of private ownership, however, the incentives for proper maintenance exist on the individual level. People don't want to use shitty roads, and the better their condition the greater flow of commerce and the greater the amount of surplus. Since there's no other way to appropriate the funds, the shareholders do not have to negotiate maintenance with other issues.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
Lord Styphon
Malevolently Mercurial


Member 3

Level 50.41

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2007, 06:28 AM Local time: Aug 9, 2007, 06:28 AM 1 #20 of 101
Originally Posted by Bradylama
In this case, so long as the infrastructure is maintained by government, voters have to consider the overall performance of government, and be forced to accept conditions according to what they view to be a better-than-other scenario.

In the case of private ownership, however, the incentives for proper maintenance exist on the individual level. People don't want to use shitty roads, and the better their condition the greater flow of commerce and the greater the amount of surplus. Since there's no other way to appropriate the funds, the shareholders do not have to negotiate maintenance with other issues.
Problems begin to arise when you remember that the voters in the first model are the same people as the shareholders in the second. In neither model does an individual level of responsibility exist for road maintainence; in the former, the government retains responsibility, while in the latter, the proposed corporation does.

People who feel no particular need to vote in local elections won't feel any to vote for board members of this new corporation, either.

Most amazing jew boots
Sarag
Fuck yea dinosaurs


Member 748

Level 53.85

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2007, 08:25 AM #21 of 101
Taxes aren't the problem, it's the appropriation of tax funds. If tax levels were a problem, Minnesota wouldn't have dropped 750,000,000 on a sports stadium for a private franchise.
Do you think that a tax levied last spring would have saved a bridge that, to all eyes who watch this sort of thing, had little indication that collapse was imminent?

Most amazing jew boots
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2007, 09:47 AM Local time: Aug 9, 2007, 09:47 AM #22 of 101
No, I am saying precisely the opposite.

Whether or not the bridge collapsed as a result of negligence has yet to be seen, the point is that Federal money for the new bridge implies that the state of Minnesota is incapable of maintaining or creating new infrastructure. The stadium example illustrates that it is.

Quote:
Problems begin to arise when you remember that the voters in the first model are the same people as the shareholders in the second. In neither model does an individual level of responsibility exist for road maintainence; in the former, the government retains responsibility, while in the latter, the proposed corporation does.

People who feel no particular need to vote in local elections won't feel any to vote for board members of this new corporation, either.
These are notable problems, but I would still say that the corporation has an incentive for income. If a bridge collapses or a road becomes unusable, then the corporation and its shareholders stop collecting income from the damaged infrastructure. Governments do not have this incentive, because government income is acquired through taxation.

It doesn't matter if repairing a bridge is cheaper than constructing a new one, since governments do not have to produce wealth.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Lord Styphon
Malevolently Mercurial


Member 3

Level 50.41

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2007, 10:58 AM Local time: Aug 9, 2007, 10:58 AM #23 of 101
Originally Posted by Bradylama
the point is that Federal money for the new bridge implies that the state of Minnesota is incapable of maintaining or creating new infrastructure.
The bridge in question was part of the Interstate Highway System, which recieves federal money.

Originally Posted by Bradylama
These are notable problems, but I would still say that the corporation has an incentive for income. If a bridge collapses or a road becomes unusable, then the corporation and its shareholders stop collecting income from the damaged infrastructure. Governments do not have this incentive, because government income is acquired through taxation.

It doesn't matter if repairing a bridge is cheaper than constructing a new one, since governments do not have to produce wealth.
By specifically setting up this corporation as a non-profit, you've removed the income motive. Any profits the corporation are subsequently redistributed to the "shareholders" based on their usage of the roads. This means that people who use the roads less get less money back than those who use it more, if they are able to get anything back at all, since it would stand to reason that those who use it more would get first priority on refunds. But, however money you get back, since you're paying the money in in the first place, your net income would still be a negative.

The negative would only grow if the corporation determined that it needed to retain some of those profits for expansion of the system, as the construction costs for building the expansions are factored in, as are the maintainence costs afterward. If the amount you drive doesn't increase, you end up getting less money back.

All of this is, however, based on the assumption that the corporation actually generates any profits to be redistributed in the first place. If it operates at a loss, the amount the users paid becomes loss, and would only increase as tolls go up to make up for corporate loss. During that time, the system couldn't expand if it needed to, since it wouldn't have the money on hand and wouldn't for some time.

FELIPE NO
BlueMikey
TREAT?!?


Member 12

Level 35.70

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2007, 01:25 PM Local time: Aug 9, 2007, 11:25 AM #24 of 101
If that would be the case, though, then there's no amount of surpluses being made since nobody is using the shitty roads.
This bridge in Minneapolis was considered deficient for seventeen years. What do you mean that no one is using the shitty roads? Tolls will still be made until you can't get over the road without a 4x4.

Of course, if people are still incapable of acting rationally, despite the information made available to them, how does that change the present situation where the government neglects infrastructure and expects the Federal government to bail them out?
It doesn't, which is the point. If it's broke and you can't fix it, don't.

The stadium example illustrates that it is.
If anything, with how much you hate the spending, the stadium example only shows that voters can't vote on the right spending and that they can't elect officials that will get them the proper maintenance, and I have no idea why you don't think those same shortcomings wouldn't transfer to a populace selecting a board to handle the problem.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
and Brandy does her best to understand
The_Griffin
Nostalgia and Crossovers


Member 266

Level 32.27

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2007, 01:34 PM Local time: Aug 9, 2007, 11:34 AM #25 of 101
It doesn't, which is the point. If it's broke and you can't fix it, don't.
Could you clarify on this statement a bit? Because it sounds to me as if you're implying that we shouldn't try to fix a broken system.

Jam it back in, in the dark.
Reply

Thread Tools

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace > Should Infrastructure be Politically Controlled?

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.