Walmart gets federal funding... for widening a street?

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dmcowen674


Of course the Pro Wally World & Pro Corporate run Government Folks in P&N are all for this.

Of course myopic folks like yourself fail to see that money spent on infrastructure and promoting trade results in higher revenues and MORE than pays for itself.

If widening this street will result in higher tax revenues for the government, then the benefits to Walmart would have to be several times more than what this costs. So why does Walmart need the government to pay for it? I'm not against the government spending money on development, i.e. a convention center that brings outsiders (and their money) to local hotels and businesses. But it sounds like this benefits ONE company. If the local government wants to give in to Walmart's blackmail and give them money, go for it. But I don't want MY money subsidizing Walmart.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dmcowen674


Of course the Pro Wally World & Pro Corporate run Government Folks in P&N are all for this.

Of course myopic folks like yourself fail to see that money spent on infrastructure and promoting trade results in higher revenues and MORE than pays for itself.

If widening this street will result in higher tax revenues for the government, then the benefits to Walmart would have to be several times more than what this costs. So why does Walmart need the government to pay for it? I'm not against the government spending money on development, i.e. a convention center that brings outsiders (and their money) to local hotels and businesses. But it sounds like this benefits ONE company. If the local government wants to give in to Walmart's blackmail and give them money, go for it. But I don't want MY money subsidizing Walmart.

Infrastructure often is localized to one, or just a few companies. The point is, will it result in a return? In most cases, including this one yes, it will.

Myopic people seem to forget that what benefits business benefits us all. It has MANY returns. More jobs, higher revenues and a healthier economy.

Public streets are the responsibility of the government. When building new roads or improving old ones, the government should base the priority upon which projects will result in the highest return in revenues. Obviously helping the nation's largest company would qualify.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dmcowen674


Of course the Pro Wally World & Pro Corporate run Government Folks in P&N are all for this.

Of course myopic folks like yourself fail to see that money spent on infrastructure and promoting trade results in higher revenues and MORE than pays for itself.

If widening this street will result in higher tax revenues for the government, then the benefits to Walmart would have to be several times more than what this costs. So why does Walmart need the government to pay for it? I'm not against the government spending money on development, i.e. a convention center that brings outsiders (and their money) to local hotels and businesses. But it sounds like this benefits ONE company. If the local government wants to give in to Walmart's blackmail and give them money, go for it. But I don't want MY money subsidizing Walmart.

Infrastructure often is localized to one, or just a few companies. The point is, will it result in a return? In most cases, including this one yes, it will.

Myopic people seem to forget that what benefits business benefits us all. It has MANY returns. More jobs, higher revenues and a healthier economy.

Public streets are the responsibility of the government. When building new roads or improving old ones, the government should base the priority upon which projects will result in the highest return in revenues. Obviously helping the nation's largest company would qualify.

They employ 20,000 people in that one area so it's not as if it's just the company that beneifits from that bill, the people who work there do too.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

They employ 20,000 people in that one area so it's not as if it's just the company that beneifits from that bill, the people who work there do too.

Exactly. The entire community benefits as well.

 

[Squisher]

I don't doubt that the government has the responsibility to furnish infrastructure, however I wonder why this is federal money.

And, at some point it is beneficial to the company to give back to the community so as to foment a bond with the community.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Squisher
I don't doubt that the government has the responsibility to furnish infrastructure, however I wonder why this is federal money.

And, at some point it is beneficial to the company to give back to the community so as to foment a bond with the community.

They do, it's called jobs. Also remember this is Arkansas, one of the poorer states in the Union. The income taxes from those who live in rich states like California go to subsidize them.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Squisher
I don't doubt that the government has the responsibility to furnish infrastructure, however I wonder why this is federal money.

And, at some point it is beneficial to the company to give back to the community so as to foment a bond with the community.

They do, it's called jobs.

Bingo. Not to mention billions in state and local tax revenue.

 

[tec699]

Originally posted by: Amused
Yes. Gawd forbid the government invest in something that actually makes a return!

While I'm against most government spending, I'd rather they spend it on infrastructure that promotes business and trade (thus creating jobs and more revenue) than piss it away on entitlements that do nothing but create dependency.

Yep... We should cut VA benefits and health benefits for senior citizens as well. Also, hell lets cut every social program known to man and give it all to big business.

When your mom, aunt, uncle, child or whoever is a victim of the increase in crime due to social programs being cut don't come and cry to me. To be honest I'll laugh at you and I'll tell you this is what happens WHEN YOU NEGLECT PEOPLE WHO ARE DISADVANTAGED!

 

[mithrandir2001]

This is why corporations give to PACs. Wal-Mart is a Republican donor and guess who is in charge?

 

[MisterCornell]

The road is a public one. Decisions to widen roads are based upon how many people are using them. If there is too much traffic on the road, of course they are going to widen it. It doesn't matter if the road leads to Walmart or John Kerry's man-boy love shack.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: tec699

Originally posted by: Amused
Yes. Gawd forbid the government invest in something that actually makes a return!

While I'm against most government spending, I'd rather they spend it on infrastructure that promotes business and trade (thus creating jobs and more revenue) than piss it away on entitlements that do nothing but create dependency.

Yep... We should cut VA benefits and health benefits for senior citizens as well. Also, hell lets cut every social program known to man and give it all to big business.

When your mom, aunt, uncle, child or whoever is a victim of the increase in crime due to social programs being cut don't come and cry to me. To be honest I'll laugh at you and I'll tell you this is what happens WHEN YOU NEGLECT PEOPLE WHO ARE DISADVANTAGED!

What was the crime rate before social programs?

What was the crime rate after social programs?

Hint: Most modern social programs were started in the mid 1960s. The US faced an explosion in crime rates throughout the 70s and 80s.

No one can give you an advantage but YOU. Social programs do not create advantages. They create dependancy and a sense of entitlement.

As for vet's benefits, they should be entitled to whatever was promised them when they signed up. Nothing less. I'm a vet, BTW.

Finally, the investment in infrastructure brings in a net PROFIT to the government in increased revenues. It also creates jobs, which lowers dependency on social programs.

 

[mithrandir2001]

No, everything went to hell when women entered the workforce en masse and two-earner households became common. It's not fair to blame the feminist movement because women should have the same opportunities as men but you just can't raise kids properly if both parents work.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001
No, everything went to hell when women entered the workforce en masse and two-earner households became common. It's not fair to blame the feminist movement because women should have the same opportunities as men but you just can't raise kids properly if both parents work.

My point was that social programs have little to no effect on the crime rate. If they had, the crime rates should have dropped after LBJ's "Great Society" plan was passed. They did exactly the opposite.

 

[mithrandir2001]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001
No, everything went to hell when women entered the workforce en masse and two-earner households became common. It's not fair to blame the feminist movement because women should have the same opportunities as men but you just can't raise kids properly if both parents work.

My point was that social programs have little to no effect on the crime rate. If they had, the crime rates should have dropped after LBJ's "Great Society" plan was passed. They did exactly the opposite.

If "all things being equal". Perhaps social programs would have had a favorable effect had the oil embargos of the early 70s never happened, nor the bear market of the 70s, nor the stagflation period of the Carter era...economic shocks that lead to crime. We can only speculate what the environment would have been like if the social programs had NOT been enacted.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001
No, everything went to hell when women entered the workforce en masse and two-earner households became common. It's not fair to blame the feminist movement because women should have the same opportunities as men but you just can't raise kids properly if both parents work.

My point was that social programs have little to no effect on the crime rate. If they had, the crime rates should have dropped after LBJ's "Great Society" plan was passed. They did exactly the opposite.

If "all things being equal". Perhaps social programs would have had a favorable effect had the oil embargos of the early 70s never happened, nor the bear market of the 70s, nor the stagflation period of the Carter era...economic shocks that lead to crime. We can only speculate what the environment would have been like if the social programs had NOT been enacted.

Another curious correlation:

Crime dropped (or continued to drop) after welfare benefits were severely restricted and limited in the mid 90s.

 

[brigden]

Walmart does wonders for the American economy - suck it up.

 

[djheater]

Responding to the OP:

There SHOULD be a method for allowing and encouraging businesses to engage in works for the public good. When corporate HQ moves, the stree will still be wider.

Obviously it's arguable that Walmart took advantage...

 

[Caminetto]

I worked for a state highway dep't at one time and this sort of thing is common, especially if the party in power "owes" the corp. a favor.
I watched as Meijer wanted to build a store beside a crowded limited access highway, but was told that Federal and State regulations would let them have only one access point to the highway. To make a long story short, the land was purchased and there are 3 access points and traffic lights slowing down traffic along that stretch of highway.
Another one that irked me at the time, was bypassing federal regulations for approval to sell Wendy's an excess tract of land and not bothering asking for federal approval even though it was federal money that purchased the tract initially. They wanted to speed it along for Wendy's and made the state taxpayers pay the cost after the fed's bitched and withdrew some funding.

 

[mithrandir2001]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001
No, everything went to hell when women entered the workforce en masse and two-earner households became common. It's not fair to blame the feminist movement because women should have the same opportunities as men but you just can't raise kids properly if both parents work.

My point was that social programs have little to no effect on the crime rate. If they had, the crime rates should have dropped after LBJ's "Great Society" plan was passed. They did exactly the opposite.

If "all things being equal". Perhaps social programs would have had a favorable effect had the oil embargos of the early 70s never happened, nor the bear market of the 70s, nor the stagflation period of the Carter era...economic shocks that lead to crime. We can only speculate what the environment would have been like if the social programs had NOT been enacted.

Another curious correlation:

Crime dropped (or continued to drop) after welfare benefits were severely restricted and limited in the mid 90s.

Again, external conditions may have been the real reason: the mid 90s augured in the beginning of the "boom times" of ultra low unemployment, fast growing wages and stock market wealth. There are endless variables; you can't assume correlations are always real.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001
No, everything went to hell when women entered the workforce en masse and two-earner households became common. It's not fair to blame the feminist movement because women should have the same opportunities as men but you just can't raise kids properly if both parents work.

My point was that social programs have little to no effect on the crime rate. If they had, the crime rates should have dropped after LBJ's "Great Society" plan was passed. They did exactly the opposite.

If "all things being equal". Perhaps social programs would have had a favorable effect had the oil embargos of the early 70s never happened, nor the bear market of the 70s, nor the stagflation period of the Carter era...economic shocks that lead to crime. We can only speculate what the environment would have been like if the social programs had NOT been enacted.

Another curious correlation:

Crime dropped (or continued to drop) after welfare benefits were severely restricted and limited in the mid 90s.

Again, external conditions may have been the real reason: the mid 90s augured in the beginning of the "boom times" of ultra low unemployment, fast growing wages and stock market wealth. There are endless variables; you can't assume correlations are always real.

No, I understand that correlation does not prove causation. However, causation usually requires some correlation.

I see NO correlation between welfare and other entitlement programs and crime rates. If anything, the weak correlation is negative, not positive.

Therefore the "social programs decrease crime" argument is rather baseless.

 

[mobobuff]

I don't see a problem with it.

 

[JACKHAMMER]

Originally posted by: brigden
Walmart does wonders for the American economy - suck it up.

ROFL

 

[brigden]

Originally posted by: JACKHAMMER

Originally posted by: brigden
Walmart does wonders for the American economy - suck it up.

ROFL

Are you disagreeing with me?

 

[mobobuff]

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: JACKHAMMER

Originally posted by: brigden
Walmart does wonders for the American economy - suck it up.

ROFL

Are you disagreeing with me?

I think he lacks the capacity to disagree, he can only use flaccid tactics of derisive patronization. Having an actual point is too difficult.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Amused
Yes. Gawd forbid the government invest in something that actually makes a return!

While I'm against most government spending, I'd rather they spend it on infrastructure that promotes business and trade (thus creating jobs and more revenue) than piss it away on entitlements that do nothing but create dependency.

There's really no return. The only thing this gives arkansas is the fact that Walmart won't threaten to move to another state for a little while. The return is negligable.