| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
September 21st 06, 11:04 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
trolling right along
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 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Persuing a Career in Electronics, HELP! | Homebrew | |||
| Bonafied Proof of LIFE AFTER DEATH -- Coal Mine Rescue | Shortwave | |||
Threaded Mode
