It seems like people need to understand that profit isn't a bad thing. Instead of only associating greed with profit, people need to understand that profit means a creation of wealth for everyone. It always baffles me that people don't realize that "big corporations" are made up of individual people.
@ca1cifer That's an excellent point. Meddling with the markets and punishing corporations creates the following devastating consequences: Private benefits wither away, bonuses cut or eliminated, layoffs galore, hiring freezes, and many employees migrate to the reckless public sector--seduced by the 'perks' of collective bargaining--where they become part of the problem. Yeah, I'm sorta disturbed by the undermining of the private sector.
@ca1cifer What people NEED to understand is that recessions are part of the business cycle. Period. Some firms stay in some firms die out, it's evolution, survival of the fittest, applied to business. We tried to have our cake and eat it by preventing recessions through bailouts, it is the worst idea ever, it is the biggest ponzi scheme, it is completely agaist the laws of economics and it results in bankruptcy.
Well. If you don't want to drive on the road built by the private sector, then don't drive on it. Some people out there just hate business no matter how much it will improve the lives of many.
Privatizing highways is a terrible idea. Sure highways will get built faster and maintained better, but the tolls will be ridiculous. 2:45 $9!? And they talk about competition. This won't be like a Target across from a WalMart. There's really gonna be 4 roads of varying quality side by side competing for drivers? No way! Any lower class person won't be able to afford to drive to work during the peak times. And don't think your taxes will lower cuz the government doesn't pay for roads anymore.
@butchster2012 While I agree with you that our taxes [probably] wouldn't go down, the private road system is conceived to be an adjunct rather than a replacement. Also, if tolls were too high for most people, new private mass transit solutions would appear to alleviate the cost. This would force the operators to reduce the tolls and increase traffic once again. Free market is always smarter than central planning, unless they're in collusion with one another.
@wisted Those are good points, but the prices for the alternate private roads would almost have to be premium. If you have a bargain price that was close to a regular public toll, people would be using it all the time. With great success would come roads that are just as congested as the public roads eliminating their competitive advantage. They can't just buy more land and build more lanes. I think many companies would see it as a risky investment at best with limited motivation for growth
@butchster2012 As long as the private roads aren't a monopoly for traffic, they will have to adjust their prices to balance demand and traffic congestion, while poorer drivers can still use public roads, which are not optimal but still a viable option. The high price leads to higher quality traffic conditions, so as long as public roads are an available alternative both wealthy and poor drivers can decide IF they WANT to pay to use the private road.
@butchster2012 You can't say that 4 highways wouldn't pop up next to each other. At one point there might be, until the big companies buy the others, and then you get the traffic jams again. It's a cycle, like everything else.
First of all there is no competition, so probably this price would be lower. Second of all lets say that you won't be able to afford it, and other people with your income. What do you think will happen if the "wealthy" buy the extra road it would mean that there are less cars on the free side? Also it was only built because it could bring profit. It is better to have a choice then not.
Also private sector would not build roads to nowhere, and expand busy streets.
@butchster2012 - But only those that use the highway will pay for it. As it is EVERYBODY pays taxes for ALL highways even if you don't drive or use certain ones at all. Would you rather pay an "onion tax" to pay for onions for everyone even if you don't eat onions? That makes no sense. All gov taxation is like that. Everyone pays taxes to fund the TSA even if you fly rarely or not at all. Hell it already exists: gov's charge tolls to use roads and in Calif. some of them are $5.
@butchster2012 Do no how much it cost to cross the GW bridge now? $8. So $9 will be cheaper because the there would be no excise tax and other road maintenance taxes.
@butchster2012 "Sure highways will get built faster and maintained better, but the tolls will be ridiculous." Well, maybe they will reflect the true price/cost of highways - rather than the 'subsidised' federal ones.
And higher prices on roadways may not be an "all bad" thing - it's the perfect incentive to spur research into reducing cost through alternative energy and perhaps utilize more railroad Vs trucks for shipping...
I don't know. Whay don't we use a train system like other cities and countries? I'd PAY for a bullet train system like Japan. So damn accurate they can give you a ticket for work if it's late. I want that.
We have a train in Tempe/Phoenix and it works pretty well. Faster than using a bus and you can take your bikes on board.
The Big Dig in Boston is a poor example. This was actually an example of privatization. The "government's contractor" was Bechtel which is a private company that performed oversight and inspection of the project; duties usually performed by state engineers and inspectors. Bechtel inspected the tunnel work where one of the ceiling panels later fell killing a woman. When it came time to fix the problem, the state engineers and inspectors were brought in to make sure the job was done right.
Ok, hate to be Captain Obvious here but there is a huge difference between allowing private industry compete to build toll roads along side of existing public roads and what W. Jr. is trying to do in Texas, that is allow private toll road builders build toll roads where their is no competition in the form of public roads. Talk about monopolies.
There is never competition when there's a public alternative available. How can you compete with someone that has the authority to steal unlimited funds? A road doesn't only compete with other roads, it competes with trains, hiking trails, helicopters, airplanes and boats too.
Illuminati=ET kin aka gods, Ea, Sirians, Satan, Pepsi, angels/demons, dragons, hulu, vampires, bluebloods, Al Gore, Windsors, Rothschilds, Rockefellars etc who rule cults like Freemasonry. Their agenda: continually cull/victimize people via gum/other poisons, Codex Alimentarius, carbon taxes, internet 2, WW3 then stage an alien invasion to get a fascist world government/religion with us chipped. Support DrDeagle, Stewart Swerdlow, Oracle Broadcasting, gardeners and free-energy techs!
Every time I see lanes upon lanes backed up for miles, I think, just about all those cars have 1 person in them, for every bus, more than 50 cars could be removed. I don't think the answer necessarily lies in spending 10's or 100's of millions to build new lanes, but in spending money efficiently(!) to build networks of buses and more trains, I bet a private company would do a great job.
Of course, they would. Government never doesn't a good job at operating efficiently. The easiest explanation is lack of competition. Now, apply this conception to health care and observe people in line versus automobiles.
Do you ride a bus everyday? Let me tell you, it sucks ass. It takes me 45 minutes to get to my family doctor. If I take a cab, it takes less than 10. And my city actually has a pretty decent transit system.
And you don't find many privately owned transit systems. The government always grants a monopoly. In cities where gov takes on these projects, the percent of people taking buses or trains doesn't often change much.
@JeanLouie1106 : In theory, that's a good idea. In practice, like AshillaBeige said, it sucks ass. I rode the bus and biked everyday for 3 months in a city that has a pretty good system. My commute to and from work would average about an hour, plus the bike ride.
When I went back to driving my car, I would take a neighbor to his workplace and myself to mine in less than 30 minutes. Without having to worry if the bus is running a little early, missing it and having to wait for the next one.
@thatguysaid That's always the juicy bit, going from theory to practice. The best public transport scenario would be one where the commute time is equal or better than by car (with equal start and finish destinations), there are many factors that slow down public transport time, namely it's passengers getting on and off, paying, and packed services. If these issues were addressed, then your 'pretty good system' would jump to 'ideal system'.
Wow, this is brilliant! I had never thought of that or heard of it. Although here's a little bonus I have noticed that has come from the bad economy-I use to get stuck in traffic everyday, but once people started losing their jobs left and right, now my commute is so much faster with less cars on the road. Thank you Big Government! =] (sarcasm intended)
Ha, funny! There is a similar argument found in intermediate macroeconomics texts regarding the "Black Death" pandemic of the mid 14th century. Apparently, with less people, wages increased. Craziness!
PS the failed Texas project is the Trans Texas Corridor, which was a massive project that Governor Perry has been trying to shove through while in office. Everyone in Texas has been against it because it's a huge waste, and the whole point is to connect Mexico with Canada via highways along US 59 and I 35...
They are building the double decker highway in Dallas at I-635 in north dallas. The interstate has 5 lanes on each side and the travel time from I-35 to US 75 (around 8 miles) is almost an hour every day, regardless of wrecks...
Bail out the consumer and they will, as always, bail out the economy. Continue to bleed the consumer and soon there will be no more consumer. No Jobs = No consumers = No business = No Jobs and on and on. Wouldn't it be better to give every American citizen that has fallen "between the cracks" $10,000 so that they may better their famlies future, pay their bills, buy things? Bailing out the rich doesn't put food on the tables of the unemployed nor does it stimulate the economy..
I overheard some businessmen and politicians discussing the federal government. They said that they should raid the US Treasury and spend all the money there is on their projects and leave nothing for the people and then when the people revolt they can kill the Federal government which was originally set up to protect the people from people like them. When the power that SHOULD belong to the people is given to large corporations it is called corporatism aka FASCISM. That is where they want us.
That is an obvious lie. Large corporations love the government because it gives them privileges and protects them from competition. You obviously see the people walking off with your money. But you fail to see the traitors inviting them into the treasury.
The government in America is WAY too big and runs Way too much of the average person's life. The American government needs to be chopped up and more things need to be run by private industry. Politicians are only out for themselves. Anyone who doesn't see that is blinded by political propaganda.
The problem is there is not enough space for people to get around. How does making more room make the problem of not enough room worse. And how does cramming these people into crowded buses help the problem of not enough space?
Maybe so but if people choose to live in "shitburbs" and suffer through the congestion, so be it. The problem addressed here is that people are forced to use overcrowed roads because of the forceful monopoly government has on roads. If you free that monopoly up no matter where people choose to live congestion will get better without force.
I've got another solution that costs less & doesn't require force. The cost in wasted fuel & wasted time is over 1500 per person per year in LA. Plus the costs to the tax payer for maintaining the roads. Solution: Stop hiding the cost, which always leads to over-use. And start charging people (electronically so they don't have to slow down) for using major roads. Charge higher rates during rush hour. More people will take public transport, find alternative routes, & travel at different times
If people want to live in cities rather than suburbs, they'll move there themselves. We don't need central planning by politicians to tell us where we should live.
People choose to live in the suburbs and commute because it provides more utility to them than living in a densely populated city does.
The higher an area's population density, the more likely that area is to vote Democrat and become dependent on the government. THAT'S the real reason liberals in Congress want to kill cars.
People choose to live in the suburbs becuase the can own a quiet, affordable home instead of living in the inner city which is crowded and dense. I respect the fact that people want property rights, but they can still own a single family home without being segregated from daily uses.
Allowing inter-connective streets with economic and efficient use of mass transit is a wonderful idea. Zoning (Government) outlaws it.
Or banking, or energy, or manufacturing or retailing or.....
Why give tax breaks to large manufacturers so they can ship US jobs overseas to countries that practice FORCED LABOR and FORCED ABORTION. Why allow large corporations to spirit their money OUT of the US to hire NO AMERICANS and pay NO TAXES.
They ALREADY HAVE enormous tax breaks. I worked for the sixth largest US corporation that paid NO TAXES AT ALL and they STILL shipped jobs out side the US. What they want is:
1. control of the US government replacing the power of the people.
2. exemption from all safety and environmental regulations so they can turn the US into a toxic trash dump.
3. continual war so they can have enormous profits.
They have had 1& 3 under BUSH and #2 in Communist Red China.
So who are they? Which company? I can easily believe that they get tax breaks from the government. I find it hard to believe that they pay "no taxes at all." And why do you give the politicians a free pass? Corporations don't get preferential treatment because they demand it. They get preferential treatment from politicians that took their money with which to get re-elected. Corruption takes two parties. Why do you recognize one and not the other?
ENRON paid ABSOLUTELY NO FEDERAL TAXES AT ALL in the last four out of five years they were in business. They received MILLIONS in Federal incentives and free services. THEY were the authors of the infamous ENRON LOOPHOLE that is a major cause of the current economic meltdown. The REPUBLICAN chairman of the Senate banking committee when this all happened and whose WIFE was making a MILLION A YEAR as an ENRON director, was Sen. Phil Gramm who was ALSO McCain's number two campaign advisor.
Also ENRON's CEO, KEN LAY, bragged of raising $110,000,000.00 for the BUSH campaign in 2000 and received MAJOR deregulatory support from Republicans in Congress and in state legilslatures around the US. Especially in California where the ENRON promoted DEREGULATION allowed ENRON to STEAL EIGHT BILLION dollars from CA utilities and rate payers according to a ruling by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission which Wendy Gramm had previously served on and made rulings favorable to ENRON.
97.4 billion for auto corporations, 170 billion for AIG, 139 billion for GE, 235 billion for Citigroup, a committed 7.8 trillion dollars over the next few years. Thats 12 trillion dollars being handed out. $12,000,000,000,000. Why wouldnt a corporation line up at the trough? Bush, Obama, McCain - What does it matter? If I steal money & lay it out on the sidewalk for people to take, do you blame them for taking it? Do you give me a free pass, because my name is Obama? Why?
I haven't checked you number but I assume they are correct, though they seem exaggerated. These are ALL BUSH programs and I DO blame Obama for continuing them. ALL of them should have been allowed to FAIL and put up for SALE by a bankruptcy judge. You CANNOT assume that all those millions of workers would be immediately out of work. Bankruptcies do not work that way and by clearing the air, often the new company can be more successful. I would SURELY pursue criminal actions at the bosses.
As I said, I do blame Obama for continuing the EIGHT YEARS of corporate welfare, but ONLY to the extent that he has been in office. What is it? 120 days? He IS allowing Chrysler and GM to go bankrupt and I believe that is good. He DID clamp down on the AIG execs, although not nearly enough. Citi and JP Morgan should BOTH be in bankrupcty, however, I suspect that would cost the taxpayer more. Truly the Citi CEO should lose his job and did but MUCH MORE criminal actions are needed. CROOKS.
He isn't allowing Chrysler and GM to go bankrupt. He is using executive power to circumvent bankruptcy laws to reward the UAW and screw the creditors.
America you need the free market. The more you regulate the more you intertwine government and big business and the less legitimate competition emerges which means when big compaines fail governments hand out cash to avoid unemployment.
God god the rest of the world made these mistakes already you guys are repeating them.
If you drive in Atlanta, you deserve to be stuck in traffic. Anyone with any sense in that city uses the public transport system. There is no way around the congestion in that city. It's shockingly RIDICULOUS.
Private roads are a great idea! Now that we're on the subject of leasing public roads, why not railroads? Or private transit? Imagine taking a cheap private bus through a faster route than public buses. It sure as hell would help me trying to get to work!
Not that easy. Private bus systems actually sometimes have higher costs. Anyways, we need a combination of private and public roads and transportation systems.
the toll road for the 91, it sucks, it always has and unless they build another parallel road, it will suck forever. So everyone knows, they said that they would collect toll to pay for the road, and that one day the toll would be little to nothing, that didn't happen.
Are they saying Barack has it wrong. That's blasphemy. Barack can wave a magic wand and money will fall from the sky. The liberals have all the answers. Just tax the rich until their middle class and then tax the middle class until their poor and then the playing field is even. The liberal utopia.
Yeah, I know. You can't spend trillions on top of trillions and just tax the rich. I don't think we have enough rich people. And so the middle class gets hit again. Directly or indirectly the working middle class gets the check. You didn't think the mean old rich people and their companies wouldn't past on the cost. Hope and change seems so far away its just a faded memory.
@iron1215 Nice comment. Reminds me of the Rush song The Trees: "There's no more oak oppression because they cast a noble law / Now the trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw"
If you haven't figured out the government lies and tells you anything they need to say to keep their jobs and quiet the people down, you're not too sharp.
If they could fix our problems they would, they simply don't know what to do and how to make it happen, all they know how to do is hand out money and create more debt and point fingers when their "great plans" fail.
billions in stimulus is supposed to fix the congested roads... so laughable... this shit makes me laugh at socialism even more than i already do. thanks for posting.
i like how the Europeans go hey stop saying socialism is bad, your roads and police are socialized you need to shut up!! yea look at the awesome job the government does at this shit
It's not about removing existing byways. It's primarily about efficient private investors building *new* routes to supplement existing ones, or adding lanes to existing roads with a pay structure. While not everyone will opt to pay for the speedier transit, the ones that do *will* relieve the congestion on the other (free) roads.
They leased out the space for a private company to build roads and maintain them. That space was between existing roads. If the private company hadn't done it those lanes would not even exist. Roads don't build themselves.
And the only time toll does mean new lanes is when the government does it because the government is a giant money wasting beast that has to find any way it can of extracting money out of the populace in order to pay for its spending habits.
Why would we...we could push a couple buttons and kill everyone on the planet...not underground, of course.
We all know how effective our $40 billion defense infrastructure is.....apparently..the only weakness it has is....(drumroll)...5 box-cutting knives...but PLEASE DON'T TELL ANYONE!
Look at 2:44. That is some backed up roads because the two roads in the middle were block off. If they were opened up for traffic all those lanes would have been moving faster.
Private companys taking money from people so they can drive on the roads they already paid for in taxes is bullshit. It does nothing to cut down on the amount of cars, which is the problem. There are enough cars on the road today that if they were put end to end they would stretch around the earth 100 times.
Obviously if you just took public roads and made them private wouldn't solve anything. That's not what we're talking about. Private companies building new roads is the idea. Roads would be built in places with the most traffic because that's where the most money is to be made. People could then choose whether to use the public roads or pay a fee to use the (presumably less congested and better maintained) private roads. Local roads would probably stay public but new highways could be private.
There was only 1 example of that in the story. Private companys can build roads if they want. There is a private road down my street that is maintained by the property owner.
If you think of the most congested places, they are not located where it would be cheap and easy to put a private road in. The highest traffic areas are surrounded by commercial buildings.
This presentation was to turn over publicly built roads to a private company so it can make money charging people to cross them.
"If you think of the most congested places, they are not located where it would be cheap and easy to put a private road in."
That's why it makes sense for a private company to build them. It could be above ground or below ground but it would only get built if the company had the money to build it.
And John didn't explicitly say whether the roads in the show were built by the companies that ran them or by the public. If they were public then I would agree with you.
He did say that the one in france was built privately and the one in california was two lanes built with public money that is maintained by a private company getting paid by tax payers.
"That's why it makes sense for a private company to build them."
Thats why private companys dont build them. There is no law preventing companys from building roads, its just not profitable without getting your tax money.
Many roads are built by private companys for private use, such as on mining, logging, and other industrial use. This video isnt talking about private companys paying to build private roads for private use. Its talking about tax payers paying for roads that are then turned over to private companys who operate them for paying customers.
You can see all the cars at 2:44 that are in traffic because they are not allowed to use the 2 lanes next to them that they paid for with their taxes.
oh that Big Dig and all the money it wasted. Good thing I live in New Hampshire, where massive liquor store (that are curiously placed on a highway...) profits fund the highways. also, the "firm" (aka big bad corporation) has a goal to make money. the "government" doesn't. people see making money as bad, but the desire to make money means that the "firm" must do things to make the money, like be efficient and provide a good service. so do we want a good service or people not making money?
as a native of pennsylvania, where PennDOT is the worst at what they do, i watched part of my road get repaved with state of the art equipment, all the while there were at least 20 men watching the entire thing go on
i have no problem with government jobs, but its ridiculous how poorly the government works at building and maintaining infrastructure
pennDOT workers, i have nothing against you either, good for you in having a job, but uncle sam's hand is just in too deep now
I lived in Atlanta. I watched traffic at a dead standstill while on the parallel surface roads there was no traffic. Also I have ridden the train and seen the traffic and a dead standstill while the train, following the same road, was more than half empty.
Atlanta has other transportation options than traveling the one main road and people just don't use them.
If the option applies to them and they don't use it then they don't have any right to complain about the traffic they cause.
What happened in Chicago and Indiana is that tolls went up, then Mayor Daley and Gov. Daniels complain they have no money. The lease money has not been accounted for. Daley says it is in a rainy day fund, but if this isn't a rainy day, I don't know what is.
If you look into other stories on the subject, most of the firms buying these roads are foreign investors. Its funny but it makes me think of how the romans would build roads through foreign lands, and use the the tolls collected to later fund the campaigns to conquer them.
Again...gov regulations..what don't you people understand...when you let a central bank countrfeit money...it distrorts the entire economy and allows the soldification of corporate power through LEGISLATION! that's why corps come with hat in hand to congress...they have access to unlimited credit and destroy small business competition through onerous legislation, tax codes, FDA, inspectors, liscencing requirements etc etc. etc
But, you realize, though, it isn't the fault of the corporations, right? I don't blame them for using the political game in order to further their ends. I'd do it too if I had the money. The problem is in government itself. Nobody polices the government. Whenever politicians violate the Constitution, as they routinely do, what happens? Nothing. No arrests. No indictments. Nothing happens. And voters continually forget and vote the same fools in each cycle.
I agree...in fact, I fully blame the FED for distorting the balances of power inherent in our system of governance..they are private bank, but gov is certainly complicit
In the story of the Good Samaritan is John Stossel the Samaritan or the Levite?
"I'm the Levite!" yelled John Stossel as he lept to his feet, "I'm definitely the Levite. I wouldn't give so little as even 1 dollar to a man on the street. I'M DEFINITELY THE LEVITE!"
No..you'de wait by the side of the road...hit someone else over the head, take their money, and buy a ride for the samaritan into town on a cart with the money you stole from someone else
Sometimes the free market creates things at a slower pace for a reason..it is more sustainable than the boom/bust cycles created by gov monetary interventions in the marketplace...overproduce, overconsume, overprint, overlevarage, overbuild...people need to start living in communities again, your precious interstate system probably won't last very long at this rate of bankruptcy anyhow..the gov is now in total control of everything pretty much...congradulations
A better solution would simply be to allow voluntary government. You can subscribe to your government and I can subscribe to mine, or none at all. Government doesn't have to be based on land monopoly after all. Only those individuals who obtain land through legitimate (non-aggressive) means have ownership over that land.
"A better solution would simply be to allow voluntary government. You can subscribe to your government and I can subscribe to mine, or none at all."
No because government is a public good. If it were voluntary everyone would opt out in a race to the bottom and end in anarchy. You may like that but 95% of the people don't and why should they go against their will just to appease your sensibilities?
"You can subscribe to your government and I can subscribe to mine, or none at all."
Btw I kinda of missed that, but you are already completely free to subscribe to your government. Which would that be, Sudan? I mean honestly I don't know why you bother to live in this tyrannical country you hate so much with it's flawed democratic system. Just go to somewhere you like. Or create your own libertopia with your entrepreneurial spirit.
Another "public good"...And yet everyone would opt out of this wonderful institution, unless it's forcefully imposed. So most people don't know what they need, and they need an authority, somehow wiser and nobler, to impose it on them--Plato's philosopher kings? And then you say that because 95% of the people want to be aggressive, I'm aggressive to oppose them? And what do you mean by anarchy? You should search for Roderick Long here a YouTube and see what he says about anarchy
"Another "public good"...And yet everyone would opt out of this wonderful institution, unless it's forcefully imposed. So most people don't know what they need, and they need an authority, somehow wiser and nobler, to impose it on them--Plato's philosopher kings?"
Nope plain psychology, there was a recent scientific study were people could put in their own money and the pot would be doubled,
but because of mistrust after a few rounds it escalated into people hardly putting any in because they were scared of putting in more than their fair share. A case where greed hurts the public (and individual) good.
"there was a recent scientific study were people could put in their own money..."
Sounds like churchgoers putting money into the collection plate and yet somehow the whole Catholic Church manages to get funding. If there is some providable service for which there is a market demand, the market WILL find a way to provide it through voluntary means--that is to say, the individual, self-interested human actors that comprise the market WILL find a way to provide it through voluntary means.
"I don't know why you bother to live in this tyrannical country...Just go to somewhere you like."
Now you seem to be saying that the State is non-aggressive. The State drives you out of your own home so that makes it non-aggressive. But before you said that the State must be an aggressive institution or everyone would flee it and that would be *shudder* anarchy. So which is it?
??? You CAN just leave... And seeing as you bought whatever property you have knowing full well what laws your purchase was subjected to it's your own damn fault that you are now whining about it. BUYERS BEWARE! Just sell it then.
Forget about my property. In actually, I don't even own any land. The point is that States gain their territorial monopolies through aggression. They do not legitimately acquire their territory; they sieze it or they sieze the money they use to buy it. This does not include only my State but also all the States I could leave TO. You said States are aggressive and you also said aggression is immoral: what more needs to be said?
"You said States are aggressive and you also said aggression is immoral: what more needs to be said?" I said none of those things, provide a qoute. The state doesn't seize your property it already owned it! If you are too dumb to figure that out when you bought it that's your own mistake,
jp: "Where the f*ck did I say the state was non agressive?"
Is the State aggressive or isn't it?
OldCot: "aggression is always immoral."
jp: "It definately is"
So...
"The state doesn't seize your property it already owned it!"
What I'm talking about is where it got it in the first place. Of course, even the US State doesn't claim to actually OWN private property. It just has some kind of "jurisdiction"
Men created governments...governments did not create man!
The same force driving your gov drives everyone else...that is undeniable.
Offer no evidence...do you not research history at all?
When there is freedom there is prosperity..prosperity like "infrastructure"..and again, if that was ALL the FEDERAL government wanted to do I wouldn't mind, but it is always the foot-in-the-door with them.
Second, there is no reason the STATE governments could not coordinate to create an interstate
"Offer no evidence...do you not research history at all?
When there is freedom there is prosperity."
It is you who is ignorant of history and facts, of the 16 countries wealthier than the USA 14 are more 'socialist' and the other two are dictatorships (doesn't fit either your or my definition of free).
currently...the US has not been truly free since 1913...we have been in banruptcy since 1930's but officially in '38...we are already socialist...it's just moving rapidly now because we are observing it
the US is a socialist empire..not a contitutional republic...so your list doesn't reflect reality
I know I know...general welfare means free pre-k, "free" drug plans for $30 TRILLION...the largest military budget in the history of mankind...gigantic foreign aid..complete control of the medical establishment, insurance, auto's ? what next ,huh? Who's crazy? Like the gov should be doing these things...maybe, that's why things are screwed up? Oh no..never,be grateful, these politicians..they gave us..they gave us..roads.
"I know I know...general welfare means free pre-k, "free" drug plans for $30 TRILLION...the largest military budget in the history of mankind...gigantic foreign aid..complete control of the medical establishment, insurance, auto's ?"
Nope it means the democratic electorate gets to decide whatever the general welfare means for them.
Nope..it means, senators and congressmen can now be completely bought out to create endless sub-par programs to get themselves re-elected and fund their buddies on wall street.
Bankers cheat by counterfeiting credit...this system is un-constitutional and is the under-lying problem in our government. If we could get this one area under control, the rest would balance each other out much more effectively. But when you let a room of guys print money out of thin air...any child could see that as having grave consequences....this is the major beef I have with gov..they are not by the people but by the banks. That is not freedom
"Oh no..never,be grateful, these politicians..they gave us..they gave us..roads."
You seem to be completely lost here.. This entire vid is pretty much about.... roads. The point being the gov provides roads, that is their role. Nothing less nothing more I don't know why you find that so hilarious.
The point is..even if they could fiscally keep up with maintanence. The trade-off is un-equal. The state governments are perfectly capable of handeling it. The states are in control of everything the Federal gov does not have jurisdiction.
We were founded as a Constitutional republic
democracies are republics transitioning into socialism
If we didn't have the net for free speech, we would be completely socialist by now, but it's happening this year big time..no doubt
"The states are in control of everything the Federal gov does not have jurisdiction."
Again:
"he Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States""
Though this wasn't used for the interstate, it was a military project. lol!
"democracies are republics transitioning into socialism
If we didn't have the net for free speech, we would be completely socialist by now, but it's happening this year big time..no doubt"
xD You libertarians are so full of shit, and have such an egocentric world view to boot. LOL the net? Wow has it been 200 years already? Seems like just a decade or two ago I first plugged in my modem.
Yeah..but you would've only seen Barack and Mccain...Ron Paul would not have been anywhere...this is a large difference...here is my fact..you and I and every american owes $500k a piece...are we really free? Yeah....right
I have to renounce my citizenship and even then, I am "subject" to 10 more years of taxation. And most will be too poor to leave. I feel for other people...they are going to be hurt most not by what has been done, but by what is happening right now.
Your country is experiencing a managed bankruptcy...wake the hell up!
My great-grandmother was from Russia...She was a super-wealthy elite class type with land, gold, businesses etc. The Bolsheviks started making a scene and my grandparents left but she stayed..thought she'd be fine.
She ended up startving to death in the streets..please tell me how universal pre-k, universal health-care, mandatory vaccines, illegalization of organic farming has anything to do with freedom
Recessions are good, necessary and unavoidable. The only time they are bad is when the government prevents the adjustment from happening.
AngelDiceII 2 months ago
The world will be a better place if everyone was is an economist...or at least know basic econ.
ca1cifer 3 months ago
It seems like people need to understand that profit isn't a bad thing. Instead of only associating greed with profit, people need to understand that profit means a creation of wealth for everyone. It always baffles me that people don't realize that "big corporations" are made up of individual people.
ca1cifer 3 months ago 2
@ca1cifer That's an excellent point. Meddling with the markets and punishing corporations creates the following devastating consequences: Private benefits wither away, bonuses cut or eliminated, layoffs galore, hiring freezes, and many employees migrate to the reckless public sector--seduced by the 'perks' of collective bargaining--where they become part of the problem. Yeah, I'm sorta disturbed by the undermining of the private sector.
wisted 3 months ago
@ca1cifer What people NEED to understand is that recessions are part of the business cycle. Period. Some firms stay in some firms die out, it's evolution, survival of the fittest, applied to business. We tried to have our cake and eat it by preventing recessions through bailouts, it is the worst idea ever, it is the biggest ponzi scheme, it is completely agaist the laws of economics and it results in bankruptcy.
That's why liquidation NEEDS to happen.
Spjungen 2 months ago
@Spjungen The recession is part of the business cycle, but we would have had a smaller one if the gov left the housing market alone.
ca1cifer 2 months ago
I live about 100 yards away from my job. I get up and walk to work about two minutes before I have to get there.
crowtservo 6 months ago
john s kickin ass once again
TheTimmoody 8 months ago
Well. If you don't want to drive on the road built by the private sector, then don't drive on it. Some people out there just hate business no matter how much it will improve the lives of many.
jpzxcvbnm 8 months ago
come to tx u can drive blind fold on hwy ipseronal ly dont like tool road
samantha34ize 8 months ago
come to tx u can drive blind fold on hwy
samantha34ize 8 months ago
Would anyone care to explain why Obama is referred to as a liberal in America? Doesn't sound quite right..
Ajvarh 10 months ago
Privatizing highways is a terrible idea. Sure highways will get built faster and maintained better, but the tolls will be ridiculous. 2:45 $9!? And they talk about competition. This won't be like a Target across from a WalMart. There's really gonna be 4 roads of varying quality side by side competing for drivers? No way! Any lower class person won't be able to afford to drive to work during the peak times. And don't think your taxes will lower cuz the government doesn't pay for roads anymore.
butchster2012 10 months ago
@butchster2012 While I agree with you that our taxes [probably] wouldn't go down, the private road system is conceived to be an adjunct rather than a replacement. Also, if tolls were too high for most people, new private mass transit solutions would appear to alleviate the cost. This would force the operators to reduce the tolls and increase traffic once again. Free market is always smarter than central planning, unless they're in collusion with one another.
wisted 10 months ago 3
@wisted Those are good points, but the prices for the alternate private roads would almost have to be premium. If you have a bargain price that was close to a regular public toll, people would be using it all the time. With great success would come roads that are just as congested as the public roads eliminating their competitive advantage. They can't just buy more land and build more lanes. I think many companies would see it as a risky investment at best with limited motivation for growth
butchster2012 10 months ago
@wisted
hahaha this is fucking bullshit
look at us in france with our highway since its privatised they are priced higher then ever!
and they do less work on em ! privatisation who would lead to a competitive price dont work. they just make a cartel !!!
madtrade 4 months ago
@madtrade Last I checked, France wasn't much of a free market.
wisted 4 months ago 2
@butchster2012 As long as the private roads aren't a monopoly for traffic, they will have to adjust their prices to balance demand and traffic congestion, while poorer drivers can still use public roads, which are not optimal but still a viable option. The high price leads to higher quality traffic conditions, so as long as public roads are an available alternative both wealthy and poor drivers can decide IF they WANT to pay to use the private road.
bowserhsu 9 months ago
@butchster2012 You can't say that 4 highways wouldn't pop up next to each other. At one point there might be, until the big companies buy the others, and then you get the traffic jams again. It's a cycle, like everything else.
That's how competition and free markets work.
Jalreal 8 months ago
@butchster2012
First of all there is no competition, so probably this price would be lower. Second of all lets say that you won't be able to afford it, and other people with your income. What do you think will happen if the "wealthy" buy the extra road it would mean that there are less cars on the free side? Also it was only built because it could bring profit. It is better to have a choice then not.
Also private sector would not build roads to nowhere, and expand busy streets.
serialkiller1990 8 months ago
@butchster2012 - But only those that use the highway will pay for it. As it is EVERYBODY pays taxes for ALL highways even if you don't drive or use certain ones at all. Would you rather pay an "onion tax" to pay for onions for everyone even if you don't eat onions? That makes no sense. All gov taxation is like that. Everyone pays taxes to fund the TSA even if you fly rarely or not at all. Hell it already exists: gov's charge tolls to use roads and in Calif. some of them are $5.
coolerdoncooper 7 months ago
@butchster2012 Do no how much it cost to cross the GW bridge now? $8. So $9 will be cheaper because the there would be no excise tax and other road maintenance taxes.
whothaplaya 6 months ago
@butchster2012 "Sure highways will get built faster and maintained better, but the tolls will be ridiculous." Well, maybe they will reflect the true price/cost of highways - rather than the 'subsidised' federal ones.
And higher prices on roadways may not be an "all bad" thing - it's the perfect incentive to spur research into reducing cost through alternative energy and perhaps utilize more railroad Vs trucks for shipping...
drkshad0 3 months ago
Too much over population once again.
MaddDogg81 1 year ago
Toll roads are a good idea as long as it's a private company. The Muskogee turnpike in Oklahoma, for example, sucks, and it's run by the government.
THE PRIVATE SECTOR DOES EVERYTHING BETTER THAN THE GOVERNMENT. Period.
Drahthaar422 1 year ago
I don't know. Whay don't we use a train system like other cities and countries? I'd PAY for a bullet train system like Japan. So damn accurate they can give you a ticket for work if it's late. I want that.
We have a train in Tempe/Phoenix and it works pretty well. Faster than using a bus and you can take your bikes on board.
Zeeroyuy 1 year ago
ride a bicycle you pussies.
Lifesucksdie123 1 year ago
The Big Dig in Boston is a poor example. This was actually an example of privatization. The "government's contractor" was Bechtel which is a private company that performed oversight and inspection of the project; duties usually performed by state engineers and inspectors. Bechtel inspected the tunnel work where one of the ceiling panels later fell killing a woman. When it came time to fix the problem, the state engineers and inspectors were brought in to make sure the job was done right.
jeffgorc 1 year ago
@jeffgorc That's not privatization. That's a nice example of corporatism though. Nice try.
pSychOAtDawn 1 year ago
They just built a toll road in austin and it is so much faster than taking IH-35.
dmeiske1 1 year ago
Governement ist afraid of Private Initiatives.....
manoman0 1 year ago
Ok, hate to be Captain Obvious here but there is a huge difference between allowing private industry compete to build toll roads along side of existing public roads and what W. Jr. is trying to do in Texas, that is allow private toll road builders build toll roads where their is no competition in the form of public roads. Talk about monopolies.
emzyk 2 years ago
There is never competition when there's a public alternative available. How can you compete with someone that has the authority to steal unlimited funds? A road doesn't only compete with other roads, it competes with trains, hiking trails, helicopters, airplanes and boats too.
jrgenkratz 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Illuminati=ET kin aka gods, Ea, Sirians, Satan, Pepsi, angels/demons, dragons, hulu, vampires, bluebloods, Al Gore, Windsors, Rothschilds, Rockefellars etc who rule cults like Freemasonry. Their agenda: continually cull/victimize people via gum/other poisons, Codex Alimentarius, carbon taxes, internet 2, WW3 then stage an alien invasion to get a fascist world government/religion with us chipped. Support DrDeagle, Stewart Swerdlow, Oracle Broadcasting, gardeners and free-energy techs!
deagla2 1 year ago
"People wont drive on it." hahahahahahaha Yeah right.
We'll just drive somewhere else.
Neweddy24 2 years ago
Every time I see lanes upon lanes backed up for miles, I think, just about all those cars have 1 person in them, for every bus, more than 50 cars could be removed. I don't think the answer necessarily lies in spending 10's or 100's of millions to build new lanes, but in spending money efficiently(!) to build networks of buses and more trains, I bet a private company would do a great job.
JeanLouie1106 2 years ago
Of course, they would. Government never doesn't a good job at operating efficiently. The easiest explanation is lack of competition. Now, apply this conception to health care and observe people in line versus automobiles.
mathproof 2 years ago 4
Do you ride a bus everyday? Let me tell you, it sucks ass. It takes me 45 minutes to get to my family doctor. If I take a cab, it takes less than 10. And my city actually has a pretty decent transit system.
And you don't find many privately owned transit systems. The government always grants a monopoly. In cities where gov takes on these projects, the percent of people taking buses or trains doesn't often change much.
AshillaBeige 2 years ago
@JeanLouie1106 : In theory, that's a good idea. In practice, like AshillaBeige said, it sucks ass. I rode the bus and biked everyday for 3 months in a city that has a pretty good system. My commute to and from work would average about an hour, plus the bike ride.
When I went back to driving my car, I would take a neighbor to his workplace and myself to mine in less than 30 minutes. Without having to worry if the bus is running a little early, missing it and having to wait for the next one.
thatguysaid 1 year ago
@thatguysaid That's always the juicy bit, going from theory to practice. The best public transport scenario would be one where the commute time is equal or better than by car (with equal start and finish destinations), there are many factors that slow down public transport time, namely it's passengers getting on and off, paying, and packed services. If these issues were addressed, then your 'pretty good system' would jump to 'ideal system'.
JeanLouie1106 1 year ago
Wow, this is brilliant! I had never thought of that or heard of it. Although here's a little bonus I have noticed that has come from the bad economy-I use to get stuck in traffic everyday, but once people started losing their jobs left and right, now my commute is so much faster with less cars on the road. Thank you Big Government! =] (sarcasm intended)
GenevaPilgrim 2 years ago
Ha, funny! There is a similar argument found in intermediate macroeconomics texts regarding the "Black Death" pandemic of the mid 14th century. Apparently, with less people, wages increased. Craziness!
mathproof 2 years ago
PS the failed Texas project is the Trans Texas Corridor, which was a massive project that Governor Perry has been trying to shove through while in office. Everyone in Texas has been against it because it's a huge waste, and the whole point is to connect Mexico with Canada via highways along US 59 and I 35...
cowboycarl04 2 years ago
They are building the double decker highway in Dallas at I-635 in north dallas. The interstate has 5 lanes on each side and the travel time from I-35 to US 75 (around 8 miles) is almost an hour every day, regardless of wrecks...
cowboycarl04 2 years ago
They are designing right now and construction should start next year...
cowboycarl04 2 years ago
Take a bus.
lynkshadow 2 years ago
The buses in my area arent as convenient as I hoped. Especially in this large county. :(
Seiku 2 years ago
there is no reason why LA cannot have mass transit. is this a dead end city? R.I.P.
JANXDPDX 2 years ago
Bail out the consumer and they will, as always, bail out the economy. Continue to bleed the consumer and soon there will be no more consumer. No Jobs = No consumers = No business = No Jobs and on and on. Wouldn't it be better to give every American citizen that has fallen "between the cracks" $10,000 so that they may better their famlies future, pay their bills, buy things? Bailing out the rich doesn't put food on the tables of the unemployed nor does it stimulate the economy..
MtBaker123 2 years ago
"I can't account for the crumby government in Indiana."
I don't want you to! Keep big government out of our life. This Hoosier says: Mother Fuck You!
sjf440 2 years ago 2
I overheard some businessmen and politicians discussing the federal government. They said that they should raid the US Treasury and spend all the money there is on their projects and leave nothing for the people and then when the people revolt they can kill the Federal government which was originally set up to protect the people from people like them. When the power that SHOULD belong to the people is given to large corporations it is called corporatism aka FASCISM. That is where they want us.
exenrontexas 2 years ago
That is an obvious lie. Large corporations love the government because it gives them privileges and protects them from competition. You obviously see the people walking off with your money. But you fail to see the traitors inviting them into the treasury.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
stossell is actually erin burnett with a mustache.
garyowen4ever 2 years ago
The government in America is WAY too big and runs Way too much of the average person's life. The American government needs to be chopped up and more things need to be run by private industry. Politicians are only out for themselves. Anyone who doesn't see that is blinded by political propaganda.
pcmr57 2 years ago 2
HELLO!!??? WHY DOES NOT ANYONE LISTEN!!??? MORE LANES AND HIGHWAYS MEANS MORE TO THE PROBLEM!!!
Solution is Mass Transit and New Urbanism development!!!! THE STIMULUS SHUOLD GO THERE!!!
LA is ruined but Las Vegas will be saved by ME!!!!!
Cyrus992 2 years ago
How can more lanes make congestion worse?
latewire 2 years ago
Reply latewire:
It does not make it worse, it adds to the problem and does not solve it.
Cyrus992 2 years ago
The problem is there is not enough space for people to get around. How does making more room make the problem of not enough room worse. And how does cramming these people into crowded buses help the problem of not enough space?
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 2 years ago
Reply to SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR:
Okay, I wiil agree that private road building does make the problem better, but NEW URBANISM DEVELOPMENT IS THE KEY!!!! Here is why:
1. Mass Transit (NOT BUSES)
2. Mixed-Use Development
3. Diverse Neighborhoods
4. Walkable towns
Americas problem with traffic congestion does just have to do with how we run our highways, but how we plan our cities.
STOP BUILDING SH*TBURBS!!! THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!!!
Cyrus992 2 years ago
Maybe so but if people choose to live in "shitburbs" and suffer through the congestion, so be it. The problem addressed here is that people are forced to use overcrowed roads because of the forceful monopoly government has on roads. If you free that monopoly up no matter where people choose to live congestion will get better without force.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 2 years ago
Comment removed
truthadvocate 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I've got another solution that costs less & doesn't require force. The cost in wasted fuel & wasted time is over 1500 per person per year in LA. Plus the costs to the tax payer for maintaining the roads. Solution: Stop hiding the cost, which always leads to over-use. And start charging people (electronically so they don't have to slow down) for using major roads. Charge higher rates during rush hour. More people will take public transport, find alternative routes, & travel at different times
truthadvocate 2 years ago
If people want to live in cities rather than suburbs, they'll move there themselves. We don't need central planning by politicians to tell us where we should live.
People choose to live in the suburbs and commute because it provides more utility to them than living in a densely populated city does.
The higher an area's population density, the more likely that area is to vote Democrat and become dependent on the government. THAT'S the real reason liberals in Congress want to kill cars.
smrushing1 2 years ago
Reply to smrushing1:
People choose to live in the suburbs becuase the can own a quiet, affordable home instead of living in the inner city which is crowded and dense. I respect the fact that people want property rights, but they can still own a single family home without being segregated from daily uses.
Allowing inter-connective streets with economic and efficient use of mass transit is a wonderful idea. Zoning (Government) outlaws it.
FYI: I do support private road ownership.
Cyrus992 2 years ago
Hmmm...I don't think that private companies should be trusted with anything important. Have you looked at our insurance industry lately?
Cypressmyst 2 years ago
Or banking, or energy, or manufacturing or retailing or.....
Why give tax breaks to large manufacturers so they can ship US jobs overseas to countries that practice FORCED LABOR and FORCED ABORTION. Why allow large corporations to spirit their money OUT of the US to hire NO AMERICANS and pay NO TAXES.
exenrontexas 2 years ago
If you gave tax breaks to large corporations they would have less incentive to ship jobs overseas.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
They ALREADY HAVE enormous tax breaks. I worked for the sixth largest US corporation that paid NO TAXES AT ALL and they STILL shipped jobs out side the US. What they want is:
1. control of the US government replacing the power of the people.
2. exemption from all safety and environmental regulations so they can turn the US into a toxic trash dump.
3. continual war so they can have enormous profits.
They have had 1& 3 under BUSH and #2 in Communist Red China.
exenrontexas 2 years ago
So who are they? Which company? I can easily believe that they get tax breaks from the government. I find it hard to believe that they pay "no taxes at all." And why do you give the politicians a free pass? Corporations don't get preferential treatment because they demand it. They get preferential treatment from politicians that took their money with which to get re-elected. Corruption takes two parties. Why do you recognize one and not the other?
truthadvocate 2 years ago
ENRON paid ABSOLUTELY NO FEDERAL TAXES AT ALL in the last four out of five years they were in business. They received MILLIONS in Federal incentives and free services. THEY were the authors of the infamous ENRON LOOPHOLE that is a major cause of the current economic meltdown. The REPUBLICAN chairman of the Senate banking committee when this all happened and whose WIFE was making a MILLION A YEAR as an ENRON director, was Sen. Phil Gramm who was ALSO McCain's number two campaign advisor.
exenrontexas 2 years ago
Also ENRON's CEO, KEN LAY, bragged of raising $110,000,000.00 for the BUSH campaign in 2000 and received MAJOR deregulatory support from Republicans in Congress and in state legilslatures around the US. Especially in California where the ENRON promoted DEREGULATION allowed ENRON to STEAL EIGHT BILLION dollars from CA utilities and rate payers according to a ruling by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission which Wendy Gramm had previously served on and made rulings favorable to ENRON.
exenrontexas 2 years ago
97.4 billion for auto corporations, 170 billion for AIG, 139 billion for GE, 235 billion for Citigroup, a committed 7.8 trillion dollars over the next few years. Thats 12 trillion dollars being handed out. $12,000,000,000,000. Why wouldnt a corporation line up at the trough? Bush, Obama, McCain - What does it matter? If I steal money & lay it out on the sidewalk for people to take, do you blame them for taking it? Do you give me a free pass, because my name is Obama? Why?
truthadvocate 2 years ago
I haven't checked you number but I assume they are correct, though they seem exaggerated. These are ALL BUSH programs and I DO blame Obama for continuing them. ALL of them should have been allowed to FAIL and put up for SALE by a bankruptcy judge. You CANNOT assume that all those millions of workers would be immediately out of work. Bankruptcies do not work that way and by clearing the air, often the new company can be more successful. I would SURELY pursue criminal actions at the bosses.
exenrontexas 2 years ago
As I said, I do blame Obama for continuing the EIGHT YEARS of corporate welfare, but ONLY to the extent that he has been in office. What is it? 120 days? He IS allowing Chrysler and GM to go bankrupt and I believe that is good. He DID clamp down on the AIG execs, although not nearly enough. Citi and JP Morgan should BOTH be in bankrupcty, however, I suspect that would cost the taxpayer more. Truly the Citi CEO should lose his job and did but MUCH MORE criminal actions are needed. CROOKS.
exenrontexas 2 years ago
He isn't allowing Chrysler and GM to go bankrupt. He is using executive power to circumvent bankruptcy laws to reward the UAW and screw the creditors.
America you need the free market. The more you regulate the more you intertwine government and big business and the less legitimate competition emerges which means when big compaines fail governments hand out cash to avoid unemployment.
God god the rest of the world made these mistakes already you guys are repeating them.
EasyEs 2 years ago
/watch?v=b1wZi2cNV98&feature=PlayList&p=04BAE9B96F17CE61&index=1&playnext=2&playnext_from=PL
exenrontexas 2 years ago
MY MAN MITCH!!!
thepeff 2 years ago
See, we need to rework our thoughts about government. It doesn't always have to be inefficient. It is some of the time. Not all.
ThePropagan 2 years ago
If you drive in Atlanta, you deserve to be stuck in traffic. Anyone with any sense in that city uses the public transport system. There is no way around the congestion in that city. It's shockingly RIDICULOUS.
MiamiPush2theLimit 2 years ago 4
is middle class lazy these days.
rextony22 2 years ago
Private roads are a great idea! Now that we're on the subject of leasing public roads, why not railroads? Or private transit? Imagine taking a cheap private bus through a faster route than public buses. It sure as hell would help me trying to get to work!
mrt585 2 years ago
Not that easy. Private bus systems actually sometimes have higher costs. Anyways, we need a combination of private and public roads and transportation systems.
ThePropagan 2 years ago
the toll road for the 91, it sucks, it always has and unless they build another parallel road, it will suck forever. So everyone knows, they said that they would collect toll to pay for the road, and that one day the toll would be little to nothing, that didn't happen.
forjonas 2 years ago
Omg dvdragon im reading crash right now lol.
adeadmilkmen 2 years ago
What if they had a train system...what if they used the subway system they built that NO BODY uses...I dont live there but LA sounds retarded.
volumedealer1 2 years ago
I run deliveries for La Cosa Nostra Pizza and I much prefer the private freeways.
dvdragon 2 years ago
Are they saying Barack has it wrong. That's blasphemy. Barack can wave a magic wand and money will fall from the sky. The liberals have all the answers. Just tax the rich until their middle class and then tax the middle class until their poor and then the playing field is even. The liberal utopia.
iron1215 2 years ago 23
Hahaha, nice..
wisted 2 years ago 2
Actually they're taxing everyone, that's propaganda that he's only taxing the rich.
DaveIrie 2 years ago 7
Yeah, I know. You can't spend trillions on top of trillions and just tax the rich. I don't think we have enough rich people. And so the middle class gets hit again. Directly or indirectly the working middle class gets the check. You didn't think the mean old rich people and their companies wouldn't past on the cost. Hope and change seems so far away its just a faded memory.
iron1215 2 years ago 9
@iron1215 Nice comment. Reminds me of the Rush song The Trees: "There's no more oak oppression because they cast a noble law / Now the trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw"
publicanimal 1 year ago
@iron1215 liberals have the best intentions.... to bad they are paving a road to... whats that place called? oooh HADES
ORACLE063 1 year ago
If you haven't figured out the government lies and tells you anything they need to say to keep their jobs and quiet the people down, you're not too sharp.
If they could fix our problems they would, they simply don't know what to do and how to make it happen, all they know how to do is hand out money and create more debt and point fingers when their "great plans" fail.
chrismorales75 2 years ago
billions in stimulus is supposed to fix the congested roads... so laughable... this shit makes me laugh at socialism even more than i already do. thanks for posting.
theconservativemind 2 years ago
i like how the Europeans go hey stop saying socialism is bad, your roads and police are socialized you need to shut up!! yea look at the awesome job the government does at this shit
theconservativemind 2 years ago
Thank you. Finally someone put Dem & Rep aside and just stated the facts.
mclarsen 2 years ago
How will taking away lanes and making people pay for it allow more traffic to get through faster?
ILykToDoDuhDrifting 2 years ago
It's not about removing existing byways. It's primarily about efficient private investors building *new* routes to supplement existing ones, or adding lanes to existing roads with a pay structure. While not everyone will opt to pay for the speedier transit, the ones that do *will* relieve the congestion on the other (free) roads.
wisted 2 years ago 4
Who said anything about taking away lanes?
thomasw78 2 years ago
He said "leasing out one of their roads to private company" and "leasing out one of their roads"
Which means leasing out roads.
Roads = a road, a lane
Not space to build new lanes.
And Atlanta is thinking about converting their car pool lane into a toll road.
Toll does not always mean "NEW!! MORE LANES!"
ILykToDoDuhDrifting 2 years ago
They leased out the space for a private company to build roads and maintain them. That space was between existing roads. If the private company hadn't done it those lanes would not even exist. Roads don't build themselves.
And the only time toll does mean new lanes is when the government does it because the government is a giant money wasting beast that has to find any way it can of extracting money out of the populace in order to pay for its spending habits.
thomasw78 2 years ago
Meant to say:
"And the only time toll does NOT mean new lanes..."
thomasw78 2 years ago
Why would we...we could push a couple buttons and kill everyone on the planet...not underground, of course.
We all know how effective our $40 billion defense infrastructure is.....apparently..the only weakness it has is....(drumroll)...5 box-cutting knives...but PLEASE DON'T TELL ANYONE!
gladiator1010 2 years ago
Look at 2:44. That is some backed up roads because the two roads in the middle were block off. If they were opened up for traffic all those lanes would have been moving faster.
Private companys taking money from people so they can drive on the roads they already paid for in taxes is bullshit. It does nothing to cut down on the amount of cars, which is the problem. There are enough cars on the road today that if they were put end to end they would stretch around the earth 100 times.
ilikehwy40 2 years ago
Obviously if you just took public roads and made them private wouldn't solve anything. That's not what we're talking about. Private companies building new roads is the idea. Roads would be built in places with the most traffic because that's where the most money is to be made. People could then choose whether to use the public roads or pay a fee to use the (presumably less congested and better maintained) private roads. Local roads would probably stay public but new highways could be private.
thomasw78 2 years ago
There was only 1 example of that in the story. Private companys can build roads if they want. There is a private road down my street that is maintained by the property owner.
If you think of the most congested places, they are not located where it would be cheap and easy to put a private road in. The highest traffic areas are surrounded by commercial buildings.
This presentation was to turn over publicly built roads to a private company so it can make money charging people to cross them.
ilikehwy40 2 years ago
"If you think of the most congested places, they are not located where it would be cheap and easy to put a private road in."
That's why it makes sense for a private company to build them. It could be above ground or below ground but it would only get built if the company had the money to build it.
And John didn't explicitly say whether the roads in the show were built by the companies that ran them or by the public. If they were public then I would agree with you.
thomasw78 2 years ago
He did say that the one in france was built privately and the one in california was two lanes built with public money that is maintained by a private company getting paid by tax payers.
"That's why it makes sense for a private company to build them."
Thats why private companys dont build them. There is no law preventing companys from building roads, its just not profitable without getting your tax money.
ilikehwy40 2 years ago
There are laws against building roads. Try extending your driveway with out getting a pile of government permits ready.
EasyEs 2 years ago
Many roads are built by private companys for private use, such as on mining, logging, and other industrial use. This video isnt talking about private companys paying to build private roads for private use. Its talking about tax payers paying for roads that are then turned over to private companys who operate them for paying customers.
You can see all the cars at 2:44 that are in traffic because they are not allowed to use the 2 lanes next to them that they paid for with their taxes.
ilikehwy40 2 years ago
5/5 JOHN STOSSEL IS AWSUM!!!!
katiekurick 2 years ago 4
oh that Big Dig and all the money it wasted. Good thing I live in New Hampshire, where massive liquor store (that are curiously placed on a highway...) profits fund the highways. also, the "firm" (aka big bad corporation) has a goal to make money. the "government" doesn't. people see making money as bad, but the desire to make money means that the "firm" must do things to make the money, like be efficient and provide a good service. so do we want a good service or people not making money?
jwd08002 2 years ago
as a native of pennsylvania, where PennDOT is the worst at what they do, i watched part of my road get repaved with state of the art equipment, all the while there were at least 20 men watching the entire thing go on
i have no problem with government jobs, but its ridiculous how poorly the government works at building and maintaining infrastructure
pennDOT workers, i have nothing against you either, good for you in having a job, but uncle sam's hand is just in too deep now
grimetime55 2 years ago
What's wrong is stealing money and initiating force against innocent people to achieve political or social goals.
CorrosionX3 2 years ago
If all people were morally good YOU WOULDN'T NEED A DICTATORSHIP.
thomasw78 2 years ago
At least there is one investigative reporter left in the incompetent liberal media of today and that's John Stossel.
dantheleo 2 years ago
I lived in Atlanta. I watched traffic at a dead standstill while on the parallel surface roads there was no traffic. Also I have ridden the train and seen the traffic and a dead standstill while the train, following the same road, was more than half empty.
Atlanta has other transportation options than traveling the one main road and people just don't use them.
If the option applies to them and they don't use it then they don't have any right to complain about the traffic they cause.
Suthrngothic 2 years ago
What happened in Chicago and Indiana is that tolls went up, then Mayor Daley and Gov. Daniels complain they have no money. The lease money has not been accounted for. Daley says it is in a rainy day fund, but if this isn't a rainy day, I don't know what is.
seminar7 2 years ago
If you look into other stories on the subject, most of the firms buying these roads are foreign investors. Its funny but it makes me think of how the romans would build roads through foreign lands, and use the the tolls collected to later fund the campaigns to conquer them.
Cleancutchaos 2 years ago
Hmm heard that ABC was in the tank for the coorperation ... i now have my proof. Imagine your roads like your insurance type health care system.
ffunit 2 years ago
Again...gov regulations..what don't you people understand...when you let a central bank countrfeit money...it distrorts the entire economy and allows the soldification of corporate power through LEGISLATION! that's why corps come with hat in hand to congress...they have access to unlimited credit and destroy small business competition through onerous legislation, tax codes, FDA, inspectors, liscencing requirements etc etc. etc
gladiator1010 2 years ago
But, you realize, though, it isn't the fault of the corporations, right? I don't blame them for using the political game in order to further their ends. I'd do it too if I had the money. The problem is in government itself. Nobody polices the government. Whenever politicians violate the Constitution, as they routinely do, what happens? Nothing. No arrests. No indictments. Nothing happens. And voters continually forget and vote the same fools in each cycle.
WayfinderX 2 years ago 2
I agree...in fact, I fully blame the FED for distorting the balances of power inherent in our system of governance..they are private bank, but gov is certainly complicit
gladiator1010 2 years ago
Yes! That is how I dreamed I might run my own roads.
marneedear 2 years ago
In the story of the Good Samaritan is John Stossel the Samaritan or the Levite?
"I'm the Levite!" yelled John Stossel as he lept to his feet, "I'm definitely the Levite. I wouldn't give so little as even 1 dollar to a man on the street. I'M DEFINITELY THE LEVITE!"
DillonX 2 years ago
No..you'de wait by the side of the road...hit someone else over the head, take their money, and buy a ride for the samaritan into town on a cart with the money you stole from someone else
gladiator1010 2 years ago
When I watch videos with John Stossel I'm reminded of the story Jesus told about THE GOOD SAMARITAN.
John Stossel screams out:
"I'm not the Good Samaritan! I'm the Levite! I'm the Levite who turned his head & walked on by!"
John Stossel would not give even an amount so small as $1 to a man on the street!
I'm not making this up!
DillonX 2 years ago
Sometimes the free market creates things at a slower pace for a reason..it is more sustainable than the boom/bust cycles created by gov monetary interventions in the marketplace...overproduce, overconsume, overprint, overlevarage, overbuild...people need to start living in communities again, your precious interstate system probably won't last very long at this rate of bankruptcy anyhow..the gov is now in total control of everything pretty much...congradulations
gladiator1010 2 years ago
".the gov is now in total control of everything pretty much...congradulations"
To you and your fellow republicans for making this possible.... For the second time now.
jpbalkenende 2 years ago
"Sometimes the free market creates things at a slower pace for a reason.."
You LITERALLY sound like an evangelist do you know that? Just spouting orthodoxy, I'm sorry but I'm unimpressed. You have no evidence whatsoever.
jpbalkenende 2 years ago
A better solution would simply be to allow voluntary government. You can subscribe to your government and I can subscribe to mine, or none at all. Government doesn't have to be based on land monopoly after all. Only those individuals who obtain land through legitimate (non-aggressive) means have ownership over that land.
OldCottage2 2 years ago
"A better solution would simply be to allow voluntary government. You can subscribe to your government and I can subscribe to mine, or none at all."
No because government is a public good. If it were voluntary everyone would opt out in a race to the bottom and end in anarchy. You may like that but 95% of the people don't and why should they go against their will just to appease your sensibilities?
jpbalkenende 2 years ago
"You can subscribe to your government and I can subscribe to mine, or none at all."
Btw I kinda of missed that, but you are already completely free to subscribe to your government. Which would that be, Sudan? I mean honestly I don't know why you bother to live in this tyrannical country you hate so much with it's flawed democratic system. Just go to somewhere you like. Or create your own libertopia with your entrepreneurial spirit.
jpbalkenende 2 years ago
Another "public good"...And yet everyone would opt out of this wonderful institution, unless it's forcefully imposed. So most people don't know what they need, and they need an authority, somehow wiser and nobler, to impose it on them--Plato's philosopher kings? And then you say that because 95% of the people want to be aggressive, I'm aggressive to oppose them? And what do you mean by anarchy? You should search for Roderick Long here a YouTube and see what he says about anarchy
OldCottage2 2 years ago
"Another "public good"...And yet everyone would opt out of this wonderful institution, unless it's forcefully imposed. So most people don't know what they need, and they need an authority, somehow wiser and nobler, to impose it on them--Plato's philosopher kings?"
Nope plain psychology, there was a recent scientific study were people could put in their own money and the pot would be doubled,
jpbalkenende 2 years ago
but because of mistrust after a few rounds it escalated into people hardly putting any in because they were scared of putting in more than their fair share. A case where greed hurts the public (and individual) good.
jpbalkenende 2 years ago
"there was a recent scientific study were people could put in their own money..."
Sounds like churchgoers putting money into the collection plate and yet somehow the whole Catholic Church manages to get funding. If there is some providable service for which there is a market demand, the market WILL find a way to provide it through voluntary means--that is to say, the individual, self-interested human actors that comprise the market WILL find a way to provide it through voluntary means.
OldCottage2 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yeah just take a look at Sudan!
jpbalkenende 2 years ago
"I don't know why you bother to live in this tyrannical country...Just go to somewhere you like."
Now you seem to be saying that the State is non-aggressive. The State drives you out of your own home so that makes it non-aggressive. But before you said that the State must be an aggressive institution or everyone would flee it and that would be *shudder* anarchy. So which is it?
OldCottage2 2 years ago
@oldCottage
Where the f*ck did I say the state was non agressive?
"But before you said that the State must be an aggressive institution or everyone would flee it and that would be *shudder* anarchy. So which is it?"
And I sure as hell never said that. What are you on?
jpbalkenende 2 years ago
"Where the f*ck did I say the state was non agressive?"
You said it when you suggested I could "just leave," as though the State was the legitimate, voluntary landowner of its territory
OldCottage2 2 years ago
??? You CAN just leave... And seeing as you bought whatever property you have knowing full well what laws your purchase was subjected to it's your own damn fault that you are now whining about it. BUYERS BEWARE! Just sell it then.
jpbalkenende 2 years ago
"You CAN just leave"
So how is the State aggressive then?
Forget about my property. In actually, I don't even own any land. The point is that States gain their territorial monopolies through aggression. They do not legitimately acquire their territory; they sieze it or they sieze the money they use to buy it. This does not include only my State but also all the States I could leave TO. You said States are aggressive and you also said aggression is immoral: what more needs to be said?
OldCottage2 2 years ago
"So how is the State aggressive then?"
Uh wars and the like? Law enforcement?
jpbalkenende 2 years ago
"You said States are aggressive and you also said aggression is immoral: what more needs to be said?" I said none of those things, provide a qoute. The state doesn't seize your property it already owned it! If you are too dumb to figure that out when you bought it that's your own mistake,
jpbalkenende 2 years ago
"I said none of those things, provide a qoute."
Huh?
jp: "Where the f*ck did I say the state was non agressive?"
Is the State aggressive or isn't it?
OldCot: "aggression is always immoral."
jp: "It definately is"
So...
"The state doesn't seize your property it already owned it!"
What I'm talking about is where it got it in the first place. Of course, even the US State doesn't claim to actually OWN private property. It just has some kind of "jurisdiction"
OldCottage2 2 years ago
@old cottage"
"I agree. It's THE key ideological difference.
jpbalkenende (14 hours ago) 0 Reply | Remove
It definitely is"
There you go, I was saying 'it definitely is... the key ideological difference"
Read it again.
jpbalkenende 2 years ago
Men created governments...governments did not create man!
The same force driving your gov drives everyone else...that is undeniable.
Offer no evidence...do you not research history at all?
When there is freedom there is prosperity..prosperity like "infrastructure"..and again, if that was ALL the FEDERAL government wanted to do I wouldn't mind, but it is always the foot-in-the-door with them.
Second, there is no reason the STATE governments could not coordinate to create an interstate
gladiator1010 2 years ago
"Offer no evidence...do you not research history at all?
When there is freedom there is prosperity."
It is you who is ignorant of history and facts, of the 16 countries wealthier than the USA 14 are more 'socialist' and the other two are dictatorships (doesn't fit either your or my definition of free).
jpbalkenende 2 years ago
currently...the US has not been truly free since 1913...we have been in banruptcy since 1930's but officially in '38...we are already socialist...it's just moving rapidly now because we are observing it
the US is a socialist empire..not a contitutional republic...so your list doesn't reflect reality
gladiator1010 2 years ago
I know I know...general welfare means free pre-k, "free" drug plans for $30 TRILLION...the largest military budget in the history of mankind...gigantic foreign aid..complete control of the medical establishment, insurance, auto's ? what next ,huh? Who's crazy? Like the gov should be doing these things...maybe, that's why things are screwed up? Oh no..never,be grateful, these politicians..they gave us..they gave us..roads.
gladiator1010 2 years ago
"I know I know...general welfare means free pre-k, "free" drug plans for $30 TRILLION...the largest military budget in the history of mankind...gigantic foreign aid..complete control of the medical establishment, insurance, auto's ?"
Nope it means the democratic electorate gets to decide whatever the general welfare means for them.
jpbalkenende 2 years ago
Nope..it means, senators and congressmen can now be completely bought out to create endless sub-par programs to get themselves re-elected and fund their buddies on wall street.
gladiator1010 2 years ago
@glad
Or that, depending on how cynical you are. But the voter gets to decide who gets to be corrupt.
jpbalkenende 2 years ago
Bankers cheat by counterfeiting credit...this system is un-constitutional and is the under-lying problem in our government. If we could get this one area under control, the rest would balance each other out much more effectively. But when you let a room of guys print money out of thin air...any child could see that as having grave consequences....this is the major beef I have with gov..they are not by the people but by the banks. That is not freedom
gladiator1010 2 years ago
"Oh no..never,be grateful, these politicians..they gave us..they gave us..roads."
You seem to be completely lost here.. This entire vid is pretty much about.... roads. The point being the gov provides roads, that is their role. Nothing less nothing more I don't know why you find that so hilarious.
jpbalkenende 2 years ago
The point is..even if they could fiscally keep up with maintanence. The trade-off is un-equal. The state governments are perfectly capable of handeling it. The states are in control of everything the Federal gov does not have jurisdiction.
We were founded as a Constitutional republic
democracies are republics transitioning into socialism
If we didn't have the net for free speech, we would be completely socialist by now, but it's happening this year big time..no doubt
gladiator1010 2 years ago
"The states are in control of everything the Federal gov does not have jurisdiction."
Again:
"he Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States""
Though this wasn't used for the interstate, it was a military project. lol!
jpbalkenende 2 years ago
* wait I guess that would be "common defense"
jpbalkenende 2 years ago
"democracies are republics transitioning into socialism
If we didn't have the net for free speech, we would be completely socialist by now, but it's happening this year big time..no doubt"
xD You libertarians are so full of shit, and have such an egocentric world view to boot. LOL the net? Wow has it been 200 years already? Seems like just a decade or two ago I first plugged in my modem.
jpbalkenende 2 years ago
Yeah..but you would've only seen Barack and Mccain...Ron Paul would not have been anywhere...this is a large difference...here is my fact..you and I and every american owes $500k a piece...are we really free? Yeah....right
gladiator1010 2 years ago
"here is my fact..you and I and every american owes $500k a piece...are we really free? Yeah....right"
Of course, you leave the country you don't owe jack.
jpbalkenende 2 years ago
I have to renounce my citizenship and even then, I am "subject" to 10 more years of taxation. And most will be too poor to leave. I feel for other people...they are going to be hurt most not by what has been done, but by what is happening right now.
gladiator1010 2 years ago
Your country is experiencing a managed bankruptcy...wake the hell up!
My great-grandmother was from Russia...She was a super-wealthy elite class type with land, gold, businesses etc. The Bolsheviks started making a scene and my grandparents left but she stayed..thought she'd be fine.
She ended up startving to death in the streets..please tell me how universal pre-k, universal health-care, mandatory vaccines, illegalization of organic farming has anything to do with freedom
gladiator1010 2 years ago