DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Brassmask on April 30, 2007, 02:53:17 AM
-
Full post at...http://www.brassmask.com/comment.php?comment.news.211 (http://www.brassmask.com/comment.php?comment.news.211)
From The Hunt For Red October
Capt. Vasili Borodin: I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me. And I will have a pickup truck... maybe even a "recreational vehicle." And drive from state to state. Do they let you do that?
Captain Ramius: I suppose.
Capt. Vasili Borodin: No papers?
Captain Ramius: No papers, state to state.
Capt. Vasili Borodin: Well then, in winter I will live in... Arizona. Actually, I think I will need two wives.
Captain Ramius: Oh, at least.
In America, one of the greatest freedoms we, as citizens, enjoy is the ability to travel anywhere in this whole country without restriction. That freedom is now being bought up by corporations to sell to those who can afford it.
This is happening right now. This is not some "in years to come" corporatist's wetdream. It's being done now.
Corporations are buying up United States infrastructure.
By all accounts, tolls will be applied or raised immediately. The reasoning behind towns, states, whatever selling is that the sales of such items will erase a large part of the budget freeing up money for social programs while also infusing the budget with a large does of quick cash. This is possibly the grossest case of short-sightedness in the history of the US since Bush and his cult illegally invaded Iraq.
-
I had not known this was occuiring, Brass. Do you have examples? How might this affect the Eisenhower Interstate System, for example?
-
I had not known this was occuiring, Brass. Do you have examples? How might this affect the Eisenhower Interstate System, for example?
From the linked article:
(snip) The aggressive toll hikes embedded in deals all but guarantee pain for lower-income citizens—and enormous profits for the buyers. For example, the investors in the $3.8 billion deal for the Indiana Toll Road, struck in 2006, could break even in year 15 of the 75-year lease, on the way to reaping as much as $21 billion in profits, estimates Merrill Lynch & Co. (MER ) What's more, some public interest groups complain that the revenue from the higher tolls inflicted on all citizens will benefit only a handful of private investors, not the commonweal (see BusinessWeek.com, 4/27/07, "A Golden Gate for Investors").
-
(snip) The aggressive toll hikes embedded in deals all but guarantee pain for lower-income citizens—and enormous profits for the buyers. For example, the investors in the $3.8 billion deal for the Indiana Toll Road, struck in 2006, could break even in year 15 of the 75-year lease, on the way to reaping as much as $21 billion in profits, estimates Merrill Lynch & Co. (MER ) What's more, some public interest groups complain that the revenue from the higher tolls inflicted on all citizens will benefit only a handful of private investors, not the commonweal (see BusinessWeek.com, 4/27/07, "A Golden Gate for Investors").
Low income poeple should then use I94 or I70. I avoid toll roads all the time.
-
Not sure why you are demonizing corporations for the actions of government officials and toll authority heads.
They are the ones who after manage the toll roads and bridges now, they are the ones who set the current rates and either have them set as pay as you go or tax payer assisted. And they are the ones who are throwing in the towel and liquidizing the asset.
-
Sometimes the choice is a toll road or no road , then a toll road is better for the poor than no road at all.
"Freeways " are supported by taxes that the poor must pay , the toll may be hidden but it is not absent.
-
Brass....
I used to question people who advocated no taxes. Who's going to pay for the infrastructure w/o taxes, I asked?
Now we see.
We are doing away with anything that contributes to the common good.
Buy guns and ammo, is all I can say.
-
Not sure why you are demonizing corporations for the actions of government officials and toll authority heads.
They are the ones who after manage the toll roads and bridges now, they are the ones who set the current rates and either have them set as pay as you go or tax payer assisted. And they are the ones who are throwing in the towel and liquidizing the asset.
Don't know why you're throwing up this pointless straw man.
And I really don't know why you're defending corporations who will take from the poor a basic freedom in America.
-
(snip) The aggressive toll hikes embedded in deals all but guarantee pain for lower-income citizens—and enormous profits for the buyers. For example, the investors in the $3.8 billion deal for the Indiana Toll Road, struck in 2006, could break even in year 15 of the 75-year lease, on the way to reaping as much as $21 billion in profits, estimates Merrill Lynch & Co. (MER ) What's more, some public interest groups complain that the revenue from the higher tolls inflicted on all citizens will benefit only a handful of private investors, not the commonweal (see BusinessWeek.com, 4/27/07, "A Golden Gate for Investors").
Low income poeple should then use I94 or I70. I avoid toll roads all the time.
What if that takes them miles and miles out of their way? Then it becomes a "which is cheaper? The toll or the gas one will have to use another non-corporately-owned road" kind of discussion in one's mind. I guess this is another example of your world famous OPTIONS/CHOICES mindset.
-
Sometimes the choice is a toll road or no road , then a toll road is better for the poor than no road at all.
"Freeways " are supported by taxes that the poor must pay , the toll may be hidden but it is not absent.
Yes, their taxes paid for the road. We own the roads. One guy is selling the road (bridge, tunnel, airport) simply because he can. It takes the "asset" out of the public's hands and into a private owners' hands. That's not good.
-
Brass....
I used to question people who advocated no taxes. Who's going to pay for the infrastructure w/o taxes, I asked?
Now we see.
We are doing away with anything that contributes to the common good.
Buy guns and ammo, is all I can say.
Taxes should be used to resolve issues for as many Americans as possible.
Taxes are a good thing.
-
Taxes are a good thing.
Taxes are universal user fees.
Tolls are targetted user fees.
Why should the poor subsidize SUV drivers from the burbs?
-
What if that takes them miles and miles out of their way? Then it becomes a "which is cheaper? The toll or the gas one will have to use another non-corporately-owned road" kind of discussion in one's mind. I guess this is another example of your world famous OPTIONS/CHOICES mindset.
Then pay the toll.
Though, in every case I've seen, there is always another route practically alongside the toll road that is free, but more heavily congested (so your choice really is "faster, with little traffic" versus "slower, with lots of traffic"). In the case of the Indiana Toll Road, that would be I94. I always use I70, however, because it also misses Chicago at the west end of the state - unless I'm going to Chicago, I don't want to get caught up in that traffic.
Yes, it is exactly a choice each person will have to make.
If you want make your argument, perhaps you can show me a trip in the US that can only be made via toll roads?
-
Don't know why you're throwing up this pointless straw man.
And I really don't know why you're defending corporations who will take from the poor a basic freedom in America.
Don't see it as a strawman.
The government currently controls the toll roads.
The government decides whether to sell the asset.
All corporations are doing is making the offer to buy.
And reading the liked article tells me that that pension and retirement funds could be the largest beneficiary of this business transaction.
Which means many of those on fixed incomes will have a more secure retirement, which helps the poor. And that is what you want isn't it?
-
Sometimes the choice is a toll road or no road , then a toll road is better for the poor than no road at all.
"Freeways " are supported by taxes that the poor must pay , the toll may be hidden but it is not absent.
Yes, their taxes paid for the road. We own the roads. One guy is selling the road (bridge, tunnel, airport) simply because he can. It takes the "asset" out of the public's hands and into a private owners' hands. That's not good.
Why is that not good?
If I bought a lot of land , paved it and set up a turnpike , I have taken nothing at all from the public but I have produced something that the public can use for a reasonable rental fee.
If I were to operate a ferry or build a bridge the public is never robbed of a cent , the tolls and fees I would charge would pay for the construction and maintence and also feed me and my next project. This subject is one in which the government and private concerns are allowed to compete directly , is there any evidence that priviately owned roads are maintained less or serve the public more poorly?
Often the choice is not whether the road will or won't be priviately owned but whether or not that road will be built this year or twenty later , do you want to state that haveing no road at all is superior to a toll road?
Taxes are a good thing.
This is not true , I can imagine Robin Hood shooting you full of arrows for takeing this side.
-
What if that takes them miles and miles out of their way? Then it becomes a "which is cheaper? The toll or the gas one will have to use another non-corporately-owned road" kind of discussion in one's mind. I guess this is another example of your world famous OPTIONS/CHOICES mindset.
Then pay the toll.
Though, in every case I've seen, there is always another route practically alongside the toll road that is free, but more heavily congested (so your choice really is "faster, with little traffic" versus "slower, with lots of traffic"). In the case of the Indiana Toll Road, that would be I94. I always use I70, however, because it also misses Chicago at the west end of the state - unless I'm going to Chicago, I don't want to get caught up in that traffic.
Yes, it is exactly a choice each person will have to make.
If you want make your argument, perhaps you can show me a trip in the US that can only be made via toll roads?
Your discussion is completely moot. The point is not how people can use non-toll roads now or how inexpensive toll roads are now, I don't disagree on that point. My point was that when corporations start buying up roads and whatnot, they will raise prices to extravangant levels and cross-country travel will become a luxury if you bow to taking their exhorbitant highways or a vacation of tedium if you can't take I-40 from Memphis to Los Angeles all the way.
Either way, the average joe loses.
Of course, you can make the case that taking the backroads results in a more fulfilling experience since you actually see America as you go, but what if the point of your trip is that you want to get to certain points QUICKLY? The point is that your choices, nay, your freedom is now limited.
When we, the citizens own the road then we can have direct control over the prices. We can call our congressman or whoever and complain and threaten to vote her ass out. But with a corporation, their help line is going to say, "we're sorry if you don't like the price, use the backroads." There is no recourse.
-
Don't know why you're throwing up this pointless straw man.
And I really don't know why you're defending corporations who will take from the poor a basic freedom in America.
Don't see it as a strawman.
The government currently controls the toll roads.
The government decides whether to sell the asset.
All corporations are doing is making the offer to buy.
And reading the liked article tells me that that pension and retirement funds could be the largest beneficiary of this business transaction.
Which means many of those on fixed incomes will have a more secure retirement, which helps the poor. And that is what you want isn't it?
Look, Eisenhower had this in mind.
Interstate Highway System
Main article: Interstate Highway System
One of Eisenhower's most enduring achievements as President was championing and signing the bill that authorized the Interstate Highway System in 1956. He justified the project through the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 as essential to American security during the Cold War. It was believed that large cities would be targets in a possible future war, and the highways were designed to evacuate them and allow the military to move in.
Eisenhower's goal to create improved highways was influenced by his involvement in the U.S. Army's 1919 Transcontinental Motor Convoy. He was assigned as an observer for the mission, which involved sending a convoy of U.S. Army vehicles coast to coast.[16] His subsequent experience with German autobahns during World War II convinced him of the benefits of an Interstate Highway System.[17]
Now, let's say that Faceless Corporation owned most of the interstate roads leaving New Orleans. Are they going to just not accept tolls when people are fleeing? Maybe. Did Exxon give out free gas in New Orleans? I don't think so.
-
Taxes are a good thing.
Taxes are universal user fees.
Tolls are targetted user fees.
Why should the poor subsidize SUV drivers from the burbs?
Roads are universal usage assets. You don't have to drive a hummer or an escalade or a beemer to use the interstate that was built with taxes. When that same road is bought by a corporation, eventually, you will have to be the kind of person who owns an upscale vehicle in order to afford to use the interstate.
Your taxes will have built it but you can't use it anymore because there's now an exorbitant fee on top of the taxes you still pay that used to be used to upkeep the interstate.
And to be quite honest, any corporation that can afford to dole out billions to buy a road or bridge isn't worth trusting as far as you can throw it.
-
My point was that when corporations start buying up roads and whatnot, they will raise prices to extravangant levels and cross-country travel will become a luxury if you bow to taking their exhorbitant highways or a vacation of tedium if you can't take I-40 from Memphis to Los Angeles all the way.
Then the current government entities should not be selling the roads. Vote their asses out.
Besides, I see no indication that most highways are being sold. Toll roads were typically setup to build highways where there was a very specific group that needed the highway and federal funds would not be provided. Your example of I-80 in Indiana fits that picture - it was built mainly to satisfy people commuting into Chicago from bedroom communities. I-94 and I-70 was built by the feds, and they satisfy most needs for travelling through Indiana west to east or east to west. The toll road was built as a convenience, and convenience always costs extra.
Of course, you can make the case that taking the backroads results in a more fulfilling experience since you actually see America as you go, but what if the point of your trip is that you want to get to certain points QUICKLY? The point is that your choices, nay, your freedom is now limited.
I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where your right to travel across the country on a high speed, limited access road is guaranteed.
When we, the citizens own the road then we can have direct control over the prices. We can call our congressman or whoever and complain and threaten to vote her ass out. But with a corporation, their help line is going to say, "we're sorry if you don't like the price, use the backroads." There is no recourse.
So, how is that complaining to the government working on the current issue of selling toll roads?
Besides, taking money away from a corporation now is much more likely to get action than the threat of possibly voting against them some years down the road. After all, if no one rides on their toll road, they'll go out of business. Happened in Virginia already.
-
Your taxes will have built it but you can't use it anymore because there's now an exorbitant fee on top of the taxes you still pay that used to be used to upkeep the interstate.
Toll roads are typically not built with tax money. They are typically funded with bonds, which is private money.
-
Details always seem to be the buzz kill for a good rant.
Pity
-
Taxes should be used to resolve issues for as many Americans as possible.
Taxes are a good thing.
*sigh*
There he goes again...
Ok, folks, the line for pitchforks is on left, burning torches on the right. No shoving, there's plenty for everyone....
-
Your taxes will have built it but you can't use it anymore because there's now an exorbitant fee on top of the taxes you still pay that used to be used to upkeep the interstate.
Toll roads are typically not built with tax money. They are typically funded with bonds, which is private money.
They paved the road behind me and hit up everybody (that is, every 2.5 area lot) for $14,000 each.
They had to pay the county, which was ready to come out full force and deal with anybody who did not want to pay.
One of the reasons I bought mine was that it had a newly paved road in front of it. Down the street and around the corner, a guy is building a house. The road is full of potholes, and will need to be paved soon. I intend to ask the guy if the realtors--those biggest whores in America--advised him about the roads. Mine did not. Asking around is how I found out.
-
actually a econo car would do better than a SUV on the interstate since the mileage would pretty much offset the cost of the toll
just because someone owns a SUV doesn`t not mean they have the money for the fuel.
actually it`s more likely people who owns expensive anything has serious debts.
I know alot of porsche owners most ask me for money.
having a expensive gas guzzler only mean you like to spend money,which has does not mean you have any.
todays concept of how money is used to blurred
everybody can now spend non-existentant money now
-
They paved the road behind me and hit up everybody (that is, every 2.5 area lot) for $14,000 each.
Did you vote against it?
Did you bother to show up for the hearing?
-
We are the first nation in the history of the world to go to the poorhouse in an automobile.
Will Rogers
It is very American to assume that the poor will have cars..
http://www.famous-quotes.com/topic.php?tid=91
-
Here in Florida we have public highways and a quasi-public abortion called MDX, which builds the thruways to the ever-growing suburbs out in what used to be the Everglades. Their goal is to have every car fitted with a transponder, which automatically picks the driver's pocket via a prepaid account whenever he drives under one of their tollbooths. It is also used for the rather poorly maintained Florida's Turnpike, that the legislature officially named the Ronald Reagan Turnpike, not that the bastardly old coot ever paid a dime to travel on it.
MDX charges to go west to east, but not east to west, so I avoid using it when I would have to pay.
Their avowed plan is to have everyone buy a transponder, because they know that most people will have already kissed the money they paid these thieves goodbye, and pay the toll rather than take slower roads.
Those that do not have transponders get to pay extra ($1.25 instead of $1.00, $1.50 instead of $1.25) and risk getting tailended by morons at the tollbooths.
-
There really isn't a freedom to tresspass.
It may look like a road , but what it really is, is land.
If I wanted to build a road why shouldn't I be free to do so?
What If I want to build an airport?
Or a Hotel?
In each of these cases I am povideing a service that requires land , and charging rent.
-
There really isn't a freedom to tresspass.
It may look like a road , but what it really is, is land.
If I wanted to build a road why shouldn't I be free to do so?
What If I want to build an airport?
Or a Hotel?
In each of these cases I am povideing a service that requires land , and charging rent.
Because the greater good is more important than your fucking property rights. More people would die with everyone getting to build their own airports.
-
There really isn't a freedom to tresspass.
It may look like a road , but what it really is, is land.
If I wanted to build a road why shouldn't I be free to do so?
What If I want to build an airport?
Or a Hotel?
In each of these cases I am povideing a service that requires land , and charging rent.
Because the greater good is more important than your fucking property rights. More people would die with everyone getting to build their own airports.
My property rights ,are as much as yours, a part of a very good thing ,how is the greater good served by institutional theft?
When we all have no property rights at all the greater good will have suffered a lot.
We do have this freedom,we can build privately owned airports, how will more people die ?
I don't really understand why you think that the government does a better job of road building or Airport management or hotel management either.
I perceive that a world built to your standards would be considerably less free , perhaps the roads would be free but they would never be built , the cars also might be free , but thay also would never be built , If I wanted to build a road , an airport or a hotel why should it be forbidden?
-
Selling the nations highway systems to private interest will create another storefront for racketeering and money laundering. All roads should remain the property of the people and all tolls should be general revenue. The idea of privatizing roads is another land grab scheme using eminent domain to steal land that the roads run through and across. Toll roads are better than the lottery, people will not have the choice in years to come, they will have to by the ticket. A monopoly in the making.
-
All roads should remain the property of the people and all tolls should be general revenue.
Even those roads built with private funds?
-
Now, let's say that Faceless Corporation owned most of the interstate roads leaving New Orleans. Are they going to just not accept tolls when people are fleeing? Maybe.
Maybe?
Definately!
Why do you call corporations faceless?
Corporations are groups of human beings not more prone to coruption (nor less) than other human orgaisations.
Governments are more stodgy and stupid and cruel than Corporatios .
While New Oreins was in distress during the days after Hurricane Katrina there was a bridge blocked to refugee evacuation , too bad it was not a turnpike .
There were examples of corporations doing philanrophic works and makeing materiael availible at reduced profit or free on that occasion.
Who exactly was giveing out free gas in New Orliens ?
-
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Wiki/stewardship:navigability
On this related issue I am on both sides.
I love canoeing and I am dismayed that some landowners of the Chatahooche are blocking access.
On the other hand I like the idea of buying some land with a creek that could be dammed for my personal power production.
If I ever do buy a creek I think I would like to have canoeists pass thru , but I might loose this attitude if they made me clean up after them.