KØHB wrote:
wrote:
Yes - they were all subsidized by the taxpayers.
Insulting bull****! Members of the Armed Forces do not receive a
"subsidy" --- they receive pay for their service.
I'm sorry if you were insulted, Hans - that was not my intent.
My point was simply that certain people and industries are paid by the
government rather than the free market. The government decides that
something needs to be done for the public good, and that user fees
can't pay for it, so taxpayer money pays for it.
That covers a lot more than members of the Armed Forces - there are
firemen, law enforcement officers, public education teachers and
administrators, all manner of public works people, etc. There are also
many private companies that would not exist, or would be much smaller,
if the government did not buy their products and services.
For example, when Hoover Dam was built in the 1930s, the government
used taxpayer money to pay the contractors that built the dam. Private
industry could not do the job alone - the cost was too high and the
short-term return on investment too low.
Once the dam was built, it provided inexpensive electricity and water,
and created an artificial lake. Which spurred development in the
region.
Those who worked on the dam - including those who died or were injured
building it - certainly earned their pay.
Is it "insulting bull****" to say that that part of the country had its
development subsidized by the government when Hoover Dam was built? If
so, how should it be described?
73 de Jim, N2EY