ideas that led to disaster

[gofaster]

Originally posted by Udie
LOL,  I can see now that you know as much about civil engineering as you do about economics,  squat.  If you call a 6 lane, 70mph,  highway a "driveway" that's news to me.  I always called them "highways"

 And about tax cuts only benefiting those who already have jobs,  that's the whole point isn't it?

Where are the endpoints? Highways have numbers.  Which ones are you talking about?  I'll look them up on the Internet and get back to you.  I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that either (a) Texas forced the companies to pay for that highway because the state didn't have the funds to do it themselves (a good reason not to cut taxes) or (b) that highway terminates.

Its great that the employed get more cash (assuming the businesses choose to pass the money along to its employees as bonuses rather than saving) through tax cuts, but I'd rather see us get more cash through increased production and sales to consumers (and we know who the biggest consumer is).

Tax cuts aren't free.  If they were, why stop at $550 billion?

[gofaster]

Originally posted by ra
You must have slept through a few semesters.

1) taxes are a burden to the private sector
2) the private sector generates the economic energy which creates ALL jobs, including government jobs (which leach off the private sector)
3) cutting taxes allows more private sector activity, so the unemployed can find jobs.  

But, assuming your view of government's benificient effects is accurrate, tell me why we shouldn't send 100% of our income to the government and let them pay all of our bills?

ra

You're trying to paint me as being pro-government.  Rather, I'm pro-government spending.  If we cut taxes that help the private sector, where's the rest of the economic activity?  Private sector alone is not a measure of true economic growth; its like measuring stock market success using only 1 index.  Cutting taxes does allow more private sector activity, but its no guarantee that the private sector will become more active.  

A company expands not because it has more profits at the end of a quarter; it expands because it has increased demands for its' products.  Profits are passed along to employees and shareholders, who can then spend the money and drive consumer spending or, conversely, save it, in which case the economy is still stagnant.   Tax cuts alone won't help, which is probably why the Senate doesn't want to give the full $550billion.  There's got to be a demand in the marketplace that will stimulate the private sector activity, as well as the tax cuts that will allow the private sector to respond to that demand.  The government can't control consumer demand, but it can control its own demand, and its own spending.  More government spending would drive the economy by placing more demand for products and suppliers.

[Rude]

Let me guess - those roads lead into their businesses, right? So who paid for the road leading from the airport to the interstate that leads to the road that leads to their businesses?

Ohhh...ohhhh...I know the answer!!!!

I design, build, lease and manage retail shopping centers/office developments.

This is how it works....

A Traffic Impact Analysis is done and paid for by guess who?
The City then requires all improvements(widening, turnlanes, new roads) to be built...and again, guess who pays for it all?
Need a new off ramp to relieve congestion on a state highway? The Private Developer pays the costs.


I hear where you're comin from, but to believe that government spending is the answer to our economic woes is ridiculous. Since overall government spending is up the past three years, where is the economic windfall you seem to think should follow?

The state budgets suffer only because of fiscal irresponsibility and overspending. Any budget, be it federal, state or private sector, all suffer from the same decease....if we don't spend it all, then we won't get it in next years budget....that is a fact and being a graduate of economics, it wouldn't suprise me that you were never taught that truth regarding real working budgets.

Feed the private sector, and jobs will be created....I do it everyday for a living...to tell me otherwise just won't balance:)

[Udie]

Originally posted by gofaster
Where are the endpoints? Highways have numbers.  Which ones are you talking about?  I'll look them up on the Internet and get back to you.  I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that either (a) Texas forced the companies to pay for that highway because the state didn't have the funds to do it themselves (a good reason not to cut taxes) or (b) that highway terminates.

Its great that the employed get more cash (assuming the businesses choose to pass the money along to its employees as bonuses rather than saving) through tax cuts, but I'd rather see us get more cash through increased production and sales to consumers (and we know who the biggest consumer is).

Tax cuts aren't free.  If they were, why stop at $550 billion?

 Inerstat 35,  I-10, I-45, I-59, RM620 (the one I was refering to)  Toad has it right when he said "Ohhh...ohhhh...I know the answer!!!!

I design, build, lease and manage retail shopping centers/office developments.

This is how it works....

A Traffic Impact Analysis is done and paid for by guess who?
The City then requires all improvements(widening, turnlanes, new roads) to be built...and again, guess who pays for it all?
Need a new off ramp to relieve congestion on a state highway? The Private Developer pays the costs. "

 And as far as tax cuts go,  I could care less what the company does with IT'S money that it gets back, it doesn't belong to me.  I'm worried about the money that I earn, I think that's a big difference between conservatives and liberals.  You guys worry too much about what somebody else is doing with their own stuff, be it cash in this instance...

[Udie]

Here's another example of a project I'm working on right now.  2 months ago we designed a street improvement for the city (to be paid by the city with a bond referendum) We finished the design and submitted it for aproval.   1 month later enter our new client who is building some apartments at the end of that other street improvement job.  Enter the city into our negotiations with our client.  BOOM city anexxed the lots and now the developer has to pay for part of the cost to the street improvements, this case being the wastewater improvements.  An additionall $500,000.00 to his cost.

[CMC Airboss]

Originally posted by gofaster
The government can't control consumer demand, but it can control its own demand, and its own spending.  

Gofaster, gotta hand it to you - you've been eloquent and unflappable with your opinions and assertions.  BZ.  But, in the quote lies the problem with this argument - The citizens should be in control of what the government spends.  The US government is by and for the people, not the other way around.   The government is also not, nor should it be, an entity unto itself at the exclusion of its people.

MiG

[gofaster]

Here in Florida we do the same thing with commercial developments - ecological impact analysis, impact fees, offramp construction - but in the end its the same thing - a road the leads to a terminal point: shopping mall, industrial park, apartment complex.  Offramps into commercial developments are driveways (even if things are bigger in Texas).

In a sick, devious way, I'm glad to see the city stuck the apartment developer with the impact fee, but in all fairness the city should've alerted him to that prior to granting the building permit.  Doing it ex post facto stuck the guy unfairly.  I'm surprised he didn't sue for relief.

Which company built I-10?  I was under the impression the Feds did it during Eisenhower's administration.

[gofaster]

Originally posted by CMC Airboss
Gofaster, gotta hand it to you - you've been eloquent and unflappable with your opinions and assertions.  BZ.  But, in the quote lies the problem with this argument - The citizens should be in control of what the government spends.  The US government is by and for the people, not the other way around.   The government is also not, nor should it be, an entity unto itself at the exclusion of its people.

MiG

Agreed.  If it were up to me, less money for social security and Medicare, more money for schools, military personnel benefits, and INS.  Unfortunately, bringing the budget up for public vote each year isn't cost effective. In a way, we do control what gets spent where because we're the ones that elect the Reps and Senators.

[Udie]

Originally posted by gofaster
Here in Florida we do the same thing with commercial developments - ecological impact analysis, impact fees, offramp construction - but in the end its the same thing - a road the leads to a terminal point: shopping mall, industrial park, apartment complex.  Offramps into commercial developments are driveways (even if things are bigger in Texas).

In a sick, devious way, I'm glad to see the city stuck the apartment developer with the impact fee, but in all fairness the city should've alerted him to that prior to granting the building permit.  Doing it ex post facto stuck the guy unfairly.  I'm surprised he didn't sue for relief.

Which company built I-10?  I was under the impression the Feds did it during Eisenhower's administration.

 hehe well he's a month away from any kind of permit.  The city of Austin is even worse. The've anexxed land after construction began and made the client re-apply for all permits before continuing construction. And then made them change designs that were already built costing a year of construction time....
Best thing the gov can do for the economy is stay the hell away, IMNSHO

[Martlet]

pass it on in bonuses?  You're missing the whole point.

More money in the private sector means more consumer spending.  That means more business expansion.  That means more jobs.  That means more money in the private sector.  Following me?

[gofaster]

Originally posted by Martlet
pass it on in bonuses?  You're missing the whole point.

More money in the private sector means more consumer spending.  That means more business expansion.  That means more jobs.  That means more money in the private sector.  Following me?

Not really.  How does a higher corporate return equal an increase in demand for goods and services?  Just because a company has the funds to expand doesn't mean that it will.  They could just as easily sock it away as a cash fund for future expansion when demand is there for their product.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by gofaster
Not really.  How does a higher corporate return equal an increase in demand for goods and services?  Just because a company has the funds to expand doesn't mean that it will.  They could just as easily sock it away as a cash fund for future expansion when demand is there for their product.

What part of "increased consumer spending" doesn't equal an "increase for goods and services"?

[gofaster]

Originally posted by Martlet
What part of "increased consumer spending" doesn't equal an "increase for goods and services"?

Correct.  Increased consumer spending does indicate an increase in demand for goods and services.  But, just because a company (or any other tax payer) has more money (i.e. less tax burden) doesn't mean its going to demand more goods and services.  Believe it or not, there are some of us who manage to save a little at the end of the month rather than spend it just because we have it.

So, again, how does having more money at the end of the month mean there's going to be more spending?  Having more money certainly means you could spend more, but it doesn't mean you're going to.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by gofaster


 Having more money certainly means you could spend more, but it doesn't mean you're going to.

Sure it does.  Some people will save more, which is good.  It gives them more of a comfort zone so they can spend more.  Most people will spend a good portion of it.  Does a person that makes 100k a year live the same as a person that makes 30k a year?  Heck no, he spends more.  He doesn't bank the 70k more he makes, he raises his standard of living.

[Sabre]

The government can't control consumer demand, but it can control its own demand, and its own spending.

Oh, Gawd! I can't resist, as hard as I've tried.  The whole point is, the Government CAN'T control it's demand or its spending.  As for being a consumer, that's only partially correct.  A huge amount of the revenue the Government confiscates from us is simply redistributed to other citizens in various entitlement programs.  In the process, a whole bunch of it is used to run those programs.  In case no one's mentioned it, the Government is incredibly inefficient in running any endeavor.  I know...I worked for Uncle Sam for 20 years, and still work for a military contractor.  If more of that money were to stay in private citizens' hands, it would find its way into the economy, create more jobs, and insure some of those sucking at the government teat could get a job of their own, creating more commerce and so on and so on.  People create wealth and jobs, not the Government.  I can't believe there are schools that still teach Gofaster's backwards view of economics.  Incredable!

Some government is necessary.  However, it can become too big.  Anytime government takes over something that should be handled in the private sector, it does so with a loss of efficiency.  Otherwise, communism and socializm would be huge economic success stories.  Spending must be paid for; tax cuts do not.  The Government simply must spend less.  Say it with me now, class: "It's MY money, not the Government's." Repeat 100 times, please.