ICW -- In Danger
 

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:47:38 -0500,
Garland Gray II wrote:

Road and other development in Arizona, Texas, Wyoming, Utah,
Michigan, Washington, etc. etc., etc. are responsible for silting up the
ICW? I don't think so.

Dave, this is getting silly. YOU made that statement, no one else.
"General public" doesn't necessarily mean every citizen in the country. If
the need for government expenditure has to be caused by the actions of each
and every citizen, which seems to be what you are expecting, or accrue to
the benefit of every citizen, there wouldn't be many dollars spent.
There is some validity to your argument--in effect to cut the pork. But I
suspect the ICW can be justified in terms of revenue produced--taxes and
safety to a greater extent than a number of other federal projects.



Pork can allways be justified, if you only ask those at the trough.
Is the ICW worth using general tax revenues for? to be honest, I don't
know. But when folks talk about pork, it seems they almost allways talk
about the *other* guy's pork.


--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Unix has security which has been tested by conniving, unscrupulous
college students over generations.

ICW -- In Danger
 

I don't have a problem with that in principle. If the states along the ICW
want to allocate cost on that basis, seems to me that's a legitimate choice.
But as I say, no reason to reach into the pocket of the guy out in the
Arizona desert to pay for it.

The navigable waters of the United States are much like the Interstate Highway
system. When the guy in AZ pays his federal taxes and some of that tax money
goes to build a freeway in Wisconsin, the overall economy benefits by improved
transportation efficiencies. The $5 of the AZ taxpayer's annual bill that goes
to a federal highway project in AZ comes back, maybe, by Wisconsin cheese
costing him
$5 less per year due to savings in transportation costs.

If we get completely carried away and say that people living outside of a
certain state should never have to pay anything for a public benefit in a
neighboring state, we'd have no need for a federal government.
Heck, if Fidel Castro raised an army to invade FLA, the other 49 states could
all sit back and say, "not our problem since he hasn't invaded our state yet."
:-)

ICW -- In Danger
 

I don't have a problem with that in principle. If the states along the ICW
want to allocate cost on that basis, seems to me that's a legitimate choice.
But as I say, no reason to reach into the pocket of the guy out in the
Arizona desert to pay for it.

The navigable waters of the United States are much like the Interstate Highway
system. When the guy in AZ pays his federal taxes and some of that tax money
goes to build a freeway in Wisconsin, the overall economy benefits by improved
transportation efficiencies. The $5 of the AZ taxpayer's annual bill that goes
to a federal highway project in AZ comes back, maybe, by Wisconsin cheese
costing him
$5 less per year due to savings in transportation costs.

If we get completely carried away and say that people living outside of a
certain state should never have to pay anything for a public benefit in a
neighboring state, we'd have no need for a federal government.
Heck, if Fidel Castro raised an army to invade FLA, the other 49 states could
all sit back and say, "not our problem since he hasn't invaded our state yet."
:-)

ICW -- In Danger
 

Seriously, we gotta stop falling for the politician's line: "I'm gonna give
you everything you want and the next guy is gonna pay for it." Everybody is
a "next guy" to somebody's favorite swill.

Do you suggest, instead, "Go ahead and alter the hydrology of the drainage
basin. We'll make the boaters pay for it!" ?

ICW -- In Danger
 

Seriously, we gotta stop falling for the politician's line: "I'm gonna give
you everything you want and the next guy is gonna pay for it." Everybody is
a "next guy" to somebody's favorite swill.

Do you suggest, instead, "Go ahead and alter the hydrology of the drainage
basin. We'll make the boaters pay for it!" ?

ICW -- In Danger
 

Subject: ICW -- In Danger
From: Dave

On 02 Mar 2004 05:00:58 GMT, (LaBomba182) said:

So just what color is the sky in your world?

Could you perhaps put whatever your point is in intelligible form?

Yes, but at this point I think it would just be easier for you if you if you
just comb down your mussed up hair.

Here have a comb on me.

Capt. Bill

ICW -- In Danger
 

Subject: ICW -- In Danger
From: Dave

On 02 Mar 2004 05:00:58 GMT, (LaBomba182) said:

So just what color is the sky in your world?

Could you perhaps put whatever your point is in intelligible form?

Yes, but at this point I think it would just be easier for you if you if you
just comb down your mussed up hair.

Here have a comb on me.

Capt. Bill

ICW -- In Danger
 

For any of those interested in an ICW special site
for the Dismal Swamp Canal which is also severely hit...

Please visit www.dismalswamp.net and have a look. There
are a lot of links there to other ICW links as well.

Bill
dismalswamp.net

ICW -- In Danger
 

For any of those interested in an ICW special site
for the Dismal Swamp Canal which is also severely hit...

Please visit www.dismalswamp.net and have a look. There
are a lot of links there to other ICW links as well.

Bill
dismalswamp.net