quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Fiscal liberals.  Those who favor government solutions to problems.

What are the reasons you want to see new programs or see an expansion of existing programs?

I have a strong bias towards using the private sector whenever possible.

Obviously, a publicly supported police system is vital.  (Although security companies compete.)  Also, and armed forces could not be sustained by private industry.

I like the SBIR program, which funds small businesses to meet government's needs.

What are some other instances where private industry cannot or will not get the job done as well as government?

Conservatives, please post in the thread created for you.

Anyone who has feelings both ways on the matter, feel free to post in both threads.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls

There's at least two flaws in your arguments that government should build a high speed rail system all across this country, and that renewable energy is the answer.

1) The existing railroads make a profit. As far as I know the government does not subsidize traditional railroads. Sure, they financed the original network, since no one company had the resources to do it. It's easy to finance something when all you have to do is print up money. The big question though, is it a sustainable financial operation. You can't just keep printing up money for ever, or that destroys your economy. Germany and I believe Argentina tried that and they had runaway inflation.

In one of the most highly populated areas of the country Amtrak is a complete financial failure. The reason they keep it is because without it, they would have to expand the highway and bridge system in the northeast which may even cost more money. However, the rest of the country does not face the problem yet of overpopulation requiring massive expansions of the highway system, but they will if democrats have their way.

If you think Amtrak is a huge financial failure, just imagine how enormous a financial liability a high speed rail network over the country would be. It would be Amtrak times 100. Generally, it's a huge mistake to subsidize an operation that does not pay for itself.

2) Wind and solar is not the answer either. The wind doesn't always blow, and the sun doesn't always shine. You must have enough power available to meet peak demands. I'm not saying wind and solar is not to be used as supplemental energy. I'm just saying that large scale expenditures by the federal government would ultimately be a waste of money since we would still have to build nuclear, coal or gas fired power plants. People are not going to tolerate blackouts on days when the wind doesnt blow or the sun doesn't shine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Actually, the Railroad industry is subsidized, and quite heavily. It is a point of contention that the Railroad industry has an unfair competitive advantage over the trucking industry since the US government subsidizes the funds for repair and upgrading of the rail network and railroad land is taxed at a far lower rate than any other corporate land holdings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

Anyone who is objective, pragmatic, fiscally conservative and not constrained by ideology should support a public option because it saves money/reduces the deficit, covers everybody AND provides equal or SUPERIOR healthcare.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/21/health.care.cbo/index.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarlingSavage

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls

"When the government creates jobs with more spending, they have to take more and more of your paycheck in taxes or pass the debt on to our children which means they are giving billions in interest payments to wealthy people here and abroad and to other countries, not to mention still owing the debt.

When private industry creates jobs, you actually receive a product or a service when they take your money. Now which would you rather have?"

All these government programs liberals support, start out small but they become massive, economic liabilities. If liberals have their way, half the country will be on social security, 25% will be on government freebies, and 25% will be working for the government. Who does that leave to pay the bills? We are 10 Trillion in debt, and liberals still can't figure out how that happened. It happened because the federal government ignored the 10th amendment and created all these agencies, and programs, 90% of which are unconstitutional. Even the national park system is unconstitutional. 90% of the time it is a local person driving into their local park which does not fall under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Health care is obviously a state issue, since it is a local person walking into their local hospital.

http://babelishere.webs.com/liberals.html

I'm sorry, weren't there expllicit instructions left for neocons not to post here?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Newsflash, moron.

Currency is backed by faith in the production and revenue raising power of the government.

That relatively tiny Greece and Portugal might default is threatening the Euro. The U.S. defaulting would be a world disaster. Our currency would be worthless. So would all dollar dominated assets. That's hyperinflation. Read an economics textbook. Any at all.

And take this bullshit to your own thread, btw.

That we need to address this debt--sure, of course. By being insane? No.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls

Newsflash: Hyperinflation is caused by either a severe shortage of manpower or natural resources that drive up the cost of labor or products or printing up money to pay off debts. 

quote:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.