daniel1113
Diamond Member
- Jun 6, 2003
- 6,448
- 0
- 0
Aren't roads the responsibility of the state/federal government so long as they aren't on private property?
daniel1113
Diamond Member
- Jun 6, 2003
- 6,448
- 0
- 0
Soo, you have a public street that 10,000+ people take to get to work everyday. Lets not fix it because walmart is there. Make them pay for it cause, you know, it's not the government's job to make sure that public streets are adequate for their level of use or anything.
I would like to see the government stop providing any funds for anything. Our tax dollars should be invested in a giant central bank account where they collect interest. All major public projects will be funded by tolls, bonds, and bake sales.
daniel1113
Diamond Member
- Jun 6, 2003
- 6,448
- 0
- 0
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,560
- 10,176
- 126
What are you talking about? In this current "greed makes right" economical climate, such doings would be considered highly un-ethical amongst the financial community!! Corporate rape and pillage, is the order of the day. When there's no "blood" left to extract, pick up and move on to another area. That's how it works these days.. :|
Because it's an obvious state-level pork-barrel project for the (large, corporate) constituents in that state, and if the lawmakers in that state are sucessful in wrestling a goodly chunk of the federal pork-barrel for their state, then I'm sure that they will be handsomely rewarded by their (large, corporate) constituents in the future. That's how it works.
It's probably connected to a "federal" highway at some point too, which gives them that leverage to get money from the federal gov't. Though I'm sure that it can't compare to the mess that is the "Big Dig" in Boston right now. Apparently, the new underwater tunnel, was made with sub-standard concrete or something, and has sprung some (minor) leaks already.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,560
- 10,176
- 126
You know, that's actually a rather brilliant idea - instead of a tax break, how about a corporate tax deferrment instead? Basically, as long as they are located in that area, they don't have to pay whatever taxes (that would have otherwise been given to them as an outright break), but they accumulate over time, such that if the company does threaten to move, then they have to pay all of their previously-deferred back taxes. Kind of like IRA or 401-K accounts, and deferred taxes, sort of.
That gives states and local areas a method to fight back against corporations that are abusing their kindness and generousity.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,560
- 10,176
- 126
Except that the infrastructure in question, should benefit more than a single private party. Without knowing more about the region and highway infrastructure, I cannot say.
But many large, large corporates, have a seperate, essentially "dedidated" street leading to their HQ from the main roads in the area. Yet, even though those roads may be marked on the maps as a sort of public way, they are not, and the corporation considers them to be "theirs", such that if you don't have any business with the corporation, and are travelling on "their" street, they will attempt to have you hassled by LEOs because of that. (I'm describing a scenario in which the "street" in question is nothing more than a giant publically-funded driveway for the corporate HQ, rather than a passable throughfare for local traffic.)
This is clearly an abuse of the "public infrastructure maintenance welfare" that most gov't provide.
OR that is the only response I could come up with for such a blatantly stupid comment. If you really think Wally world does great things for our economy, then there is really nothing I can say to make you think otherwise. Is there? Jackass.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,560
- 10,176
- 126
Yes, but not for "the people" that are funding it - rather "the corporation" that is the beneficiary of corporate welfare is. Obviously, this is another example of how you favor socialism and welfare, correct? Or do you try to distinguish it somehow, because the beneficiary is a corporation?
How is that any different, than myself as a person, making the argument that gov't personal welfare (for me), benefits "us all", because it enables me to .. exist in society, and spend money into the economy? Thus fueling the economy, resulting in benefits for "all". So therefore, gov't welfare handouts to private persons are good... right?
(Btw, the above was a hypothetical, I'm not personally the recipient of any gov't welfare.)
Uhm, yes, but note that one word - "public". If it's a public way, then there is certainly an argument that the beneficiaries will be more than just Wal-Mart's employees. But if it's just a driveway, essentially, for their corporate HQ, then it's very hard to argue that this wouldn't be a blatant case of "corporate welfare".
Edit: Fixed unclosed italics.
A public road is not "corporate welfare". If the road is entirely on public right-of-way ANY of the adjacent property owners are entitled to use the ROW to access their property. You are in fact the one that is trying to distinguish between uses. Based on your statements you think that because Walmart is a large corparate structure that they should somehow be responsbile for funding and constructing public roadways? You want to allow some use of public ROW but not another you want to discrimate against those with wealth, what does that make you?
If you truely can't distinguish the financial difference between building a public road and welfare than you have a serious lack of understanding in economics and shouldn't even be participating in this discussion.
Regardless of whether the Walmart headquarters is the only property in use along this public street or not is irrelevant to the discussion. The road is on Public ROW, anyone can use it including all adjacent property owners. If the road meets the requirements for being reconstructed then it SHOULD be reconstructed without regard to WHO it serves.
This whole thread is nothing more than a statement of how fashionable it is to hate walmart.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,560
- 10,176
- 126
WOW. Just wow. You have a totally distorted view of gov't. Either that, or my entire view of gov't, as taught to me via gov't schools, is fundementally flawed.
At least my understanding, is that at least in theory, the gov't in the US, whether at the state or federal level, is a gov't by and of the people, meaning that the actions of the gov't are, collectively, the actions of the people. Likewise, the funds in the gov't purse, are the funds of the people.
A gov'ts first priority, should not be profits! You have such a blindly pro-corporate viewpoint, that you appear to project upon the gov't itself, that it should be a corporation, and exist to produce profit, above all else. I don't think that one could have a more fatally-flawed viewpoint of gov't, unless they idolised about a future corporate-owned gov't model, in which there is no distinction between the gov't and corporations, they are all one, and they both regulate the activities of, and profit off of, their "workers", which would be a new euphamism to replace "citizens". Such is only the view of fascist socialists, really.
The sad part is, you are such a pro-socialism (pro- corporate socialism, to be precise) hypocrite, that you can't even see it. The fact that "higher gov't profits" == "higher taxes" == "less available free capital in the hands individual citizens" == "less 'fuel' to be re-invested into the economic system as a whole" seems to escape you. Ultimately, the highest theoretical "gov't profit level" would be collecting 100% of revenue from everyone, thus leaving them 0% to spend, thus creating economically-stagnating deadlock. But if you believe that "higher gov't profits" are a valid goal, then I would likewise assume that you would be for that, correct?
If you truely supported a "free market economy", you wouldn't be supporting the gov't paying for Wal-Mart's driveway, you would be denouncing it. Assuming for the sake of this discussion that the sole/primary beneficiary of the roadwork is Wal-Mart, then it should be up to them to measure the ROI on the necessary infrastructure costs, vs. the benefits that it brings them. They would have to raise the costs of goods sold, slightly, to account for the costs, but at the same time, if it decreases the time spent by their workers during their job commute, then it would make them more efficient, and if it made the trip shorter, it could likewise reduce their worker's transportation costs, which Wal-Mart could figure into a savings in the cost of their labor.
But why should other citizens, be forced (at gunpoint, ostensibly, as all gov't taxes are collected/extracted from the population by way of implied threat of violence against their freedom or person), to pay for Wal-Mart's driveway? Any more than other citizens should be forced to pay for another citizen's private rent or groceries, part of their "personal infrastructure"? (As opposed to "corporate infrastructure".)
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,560
- 10,176
- 126
Which was largely due to both the increased level of gov't taxation, as well as inflation making the money earned, worth less in "real value".
And the increases in gov't taxation levels, are directly related to these "corporate welfare" handouts, such as paying for enlarging Wal-Mart's driveway.
Yes, I believe that's true. So therefore, the offspring raised today, seem to have a poorer "value system", generally (along with many, many other factors, such as outside media influence, besides just both parents being away from the house during the day). A lot of "society's big problems" are rather intangible, but stem from things such as these. So in a very real sense, Wal-Mart's corporate greed is destroying the fabric of America in ways that most people never even notice.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,560
- 10,176
- 126
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,560
- 10,176
- 126
They did that out here too, they added an exit off of the highway, and the only place that it leads to, is a giant corporate park's parking-lot. Sure, it probably did alleviate some of the traffic load off of the other exits, the ones that lead to other throughfares and public roads, but this one definately is really only directly beneficial to those people that work for one of those corporations.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,560
- 10,176
- 126
I'm suggesting, because I've seen it with my own eyes in several places in this area, where there are "public" streets, that really only serve to connect a corporation's parking-lot with other public streets. There is no privately-owned, "adjacent property" - all of it is owned by the corporation. Thus those streets get paid for by the gov't, but are really only benefiting the corporation and their workers. And in at least one case, the corporation set up a guard shack at the entrances, and would surely prohibit me continuing to use that "public" road to use to walk to the other side of the town, because it encircles the corporation's property. (But in this specific case, it used to be a useful public throughfare. Now it is not. I daren't test simply walking past the guard shack, I don't feel like getting hassled.)
Then you have a serious reading comprehension problem, if you couldn't understand my example given. The question was, how is there any real difference, between using public funds ("welfare"), for a single sole/primary beneficiary, whether they are a corporate entity or a private one? I posit that there isn't any. And if you use the argument that there are "trickle-down" benefits, then I can turn around and argue the same thing - that as a private person, I have resource needs (just like a corporation does, but in different ways), and thus that ("welfare") money that I recieve, will get spent back out into the economy, thus fueling it, just like a corporation does, when they "create jobs", and "pay wages". In both cases the money is flowing back out. So again, how are they any different, in principal?
No, it's not. Because that determines, practically, who is the real beneficiary here. Anything else, is deceptive political hand-waving.
But is it, in fact, a public throughfare, or should it really be designated a "private way", in which case the local gov't would have no further responsibility for upkeep? I've seen some of those around here, they are a "street", but really only serve to connect a group of houses' driveways, to another public street. Generally, they are in a bad state of disrepair. Of course, Wal-Mart should have the funds available to prevent that from ever happening to their "driveway".
Lets put an end to your ignorance and blind assumptions RIGHT NOW. The following link contains a map of BentonVille Arkansas. Zooming in on where Walmart headquarters is located I note the following:
http://maps.google.com/maps?oi=map&q=Eighth+Street,+Bentonville,+AR
The Street mentioned in the news article with the line item funding is Eighth Street. NW Eighth steet makes the connection from US-71 to Bella Vista Road. Walmart headquarters is located on the corner of this junction.
Approximately 37million in funds were included in the request. Given a 10% for engineering, another 10% for construction management and an additonal contribution of 10% for the state participation. This leaves approximately 33 million as a rough number for direct construction funds. A general rule of thumb is that 1mllion will buy you 1 lane-mile of constructed roadway. This gives you roughtly 33 lane miles, this means a 4 lane road with turn pockets and shoulders would give you around 6 miles of construction. Given the distance involved by looking at the map I would say there is a very good possibility that the road needs to be much wider than four lanes to accomindate the traffic.
But lets not diverge to much into the financial analysis. Given that the funds are sufficient to reconstruct from US-71 to the conection to Bella Vista road and probably beyond it can be said affirmatively that this IS NOT CONSTRUCTION OF WALMARTS DRIVEWAY. This is in fact reconstruction of what appears to be a fairly major urban arterial that will benefit all adjacent property owners without regard to who they are.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 15K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter