Earthen Dam Roulette - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

MS Fowler · #46 12-29-2008, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

As it should be. Get cities out of private enterprise. If anybody in the city wants one of those team thingies let him buy one and build some bleachers out of his own pocket. Or sell stock, like legitimate companies do when they want to raise cash for expansion of capital assets.

Baltimore City is actually investing taxpayer dollars into building a new hotel. The government will own and run the hotel in direct competition with private enterprises. How fair is that?
Oh, the kicker is this---they tried to get private industry to build the hotel, but no one considered it financially a good investment. So government rushes in where private investors feared to tread.
Since the democrat party owns Baltimore City, there will never be any political fallout from this; no one will be turned out of office; no one ever held accountable for the losses.

aklim · #47 12-29-2008, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Oh, the kicker is this---they tried to get private industry to build the hotel, but no one considered it financially a good investment. So government rushes in where private investors feared to tread.

The govt can do it because they will somehow make rules where the hotel is profitable. Private investors might not get as good a deal.

aklim · #48 12-29-2008, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

As it should be. Get cities out of private enterprise. If anybody in the city wants one of those team thingies let him buy one and build some bleachers out of his own pocket. Or sell stock, like legitimate companies do when they want to raise cash for expansion of capital assets.

In theory, yes. However the problem is that the city will want to have it there because they drool when they think of all the revenue that the city will get from the merchants who profit from the city. As such, each city will try to offer as good an incentive package as they can get to have the stadium built. Even if they lose money, it isn't their money and they can raise taxes.

Think about it this way. There are 10 of us guys on an island and never had a woman for the last 3 years. A girl gets shipwrecked on it. Suddenly, we all go kissing her ass to get laid. Sure, her value goes down if none of us bite and she will have to carry her own weight but as long as there are 10 horny guys there, well......

cmac2012 · #49 12-31-2008, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pooka

If you want to see how a REAL earthen dam flood looks then Google 'Johnstown Flood".

It will make you want to move if you live downstream from one of these.

I saw a video bit on that, maybe history channel, I forget. Pretty amazing. They said locomotives were tumbled down the valley. Imagine having a 100,000 pound locomotive rolling over your house.

mgburg · #50 12-31-2008, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Politicians in general refuse to see the consequences of their actions. Having never been involved in running a business, their actions are not tempered by knowledge. ... A few years ago, the legislators of Maryland voted an increase in the taxes to be paid by health insurance companies. The legislators clucked that the businesses involved would not pass the increases on to their customers, but would simply absorb the increased costs. HA HA! They were shocked! shocked! to hear complaints from their constitutents that their health insurance premiums were going up. ... Previous to this, the same body of wise persons increased the fees on the banking industry. The result was to drive all large commercial banks to Delaware where they pay no fees. Again, the elected representatives were baffled by this "illogical" reaction.

Same sort of thing is happening in La Crosse...the city thinks the Fire Dept. should take over the city's portion of ambulance service that's being handled, currently, by a third party...all they see is the approx. $800.00/ride that MediWelCrap pays the ambulance company for each ride it gives a MWC receipient...they "did a study" that showed (at least they attempted to snow the folks with this "study") the city would break even in 5 years and after that, it was pure gravy in the city's coffers...

Dumbasses didn't even have the cost of training, re-certification training and the truck figured into the "study" - I mentioned that to them in a public meeting and mentioned that fact that half the people they were hoping to be part of the MWC payments weren't even on Welfare or even collect Medicaid...and when the city did do ambulance services back in the early 80s, they had, at best, a 67% collection rate. None of that was even figured in the "study" - The 67% collection rate was the main reason the city GOT OUT of the ambulance business back in the 80s to begin with. But, history is bound to be repeated when when you fail to heed its lessons...

The story that was being told in the back of the room was that the mayor (Demo-dunce) was paying back the Police/Firemens' Union for the past election backing he had received...

Now, the whole thing is going to go before the voters is spring in a binding referendum (only good for 2 years if I remember correctly) that should shelve this idea 'til Tweedle-dumbass loses his job as mayor. The other goof-ball we have to get rid of is the Demo-dunce that's the Chairman of the County Board. He had to be in on this hairball scheme in order for the city to even try to run it up the flag-pole...

Thank God someone got the petitions out and signed before this thing got rammed down the taxpayers' throats.

The bad part about all of this? If the referendum fails and the city gets to boot out the private amubulance service from the city of La Crosse, there won't be enough "business" in the surrounding 3 counties to sustain the current level of service, so the whole 3 counties would have to pay more just to keep something available for the out-of-towners...

Now, here's political thinking that's self-destructive, knee-jerkish at best, and selfish for sure...it must border on criminal, but no one's been able to figure how to get that one to stick...

MS Fowler · #51 12-31-2008, 05:49 AM

Governments MUST do some things well, but competing with businesses is not one of them.

pj67coll · #52 12-31-2008, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/23/tennessee.sludge.spill/index.html?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail

One wonders how many earthen dams are heading towards the bursting stage. This is the dark side of American economic life. We produce bundles of electricity that we absolutely have to have and we shunt part of the cost of producing that electricity off to the side -- in this case, the gynormous lake of toxic muck located above nearby waterways.

But then, there's always something below, the ocean if nothing else.

This is not good. Not good at all. And it's far from the first time it's happened. Cyanide leech pond containment dams have failed in the past, as well as other coal sludge ponds.

I blame the eco-freaks. Amazing to think the nation that landed on the moon is still ****ing around with coal fired power plants instead of having gone completely nuclear already.

- Peter.

cmac2012 · #53 01-02-2009, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

I blame the eco-freaks. Amazing to think the nation that landed on the moon is still ****ing around with coal fired power plants instead of having gone completely nuclear already.

- Peter.

Another of the sort of vast over-simplifications that you're good at.

AFAIK, no utility will build a nuke plant w/o the thing being fully insured, subsidized, you name it, by the govt. This is not the case with coal fired plants. There is money to be made -- much more of a sure-fire deal than nuke plants.

It appears to me that the free market has made a statement on the merits of nuclear power.

Botnst · #54 01-02-2009, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Another of the sort of vast over-simplifications that you're good at.....

Ha!

pj67coll · #55 01-02-2009, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Another of the sort of vast over-simplifications that you're good at.

Indeed!

Quote:

AFAIK, no utility will build a nuke plant w/o the thing being fully insured, subsidized, you name it, by the govt. This is not the case with coal fired plants. There is money to be made -- much more of a sure-fire deal than nuke plants.

It appears to me that the free market has made a statement on the merits of nuclear power.

The "free market" has made no such statement. A huge reason for that increased cost associated with Nuclear power is the primitive histrionics of the eco-freaks and their attendant acolytes. Consequently the US is still, in the 21st century, buggering around with coal fired power plants while places such as France have over 80 percent of their energy supplied by nuclear.

- Peter.

RichC · #56 01-02-2009, 11:07 PM

Nuclear will not work for the same reasons coal is not working.

Both take major amounts of mining to get the meterials from the earth.
Destroying the land and leaching runnoff of some nasty chemicals from the mining.

Both are estremey hazardous to our health.

Both have some nasty toxic stuff left behind that we dont know what to do with.

Both are used to boil water to make steam to turn generators.
I think people believe the nuclear material is easily gotten, and you just plug some wires into it, and Presto ! electricity.

There are much better ways to spin a generator.

.....................................................

The reason we still burn coal is because it is centralized and profitable.
Same with nuclear. It is just as nasty as coal.
But it is centralized. One company owns the plant and everyone has to plug into it.

Wind, soalr, and geothermal can be easily decentralized.
Just like the internet is.
Each person can generate their own power.

There are not the long term profits in the good clean stuff, like there is the nasty dirty crud.

So the money makers try to convince us there are such things a clean coal and safe nuclear.

cmac2012 · #57 01-03-2009, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Indeed!

The "free market" has made no such statement. A huge reason for that increased cost associated with Nuclear power is the primitive histrionics of the eco-freaks and their attendant acolytes. Consequently the US is still, in the 21st century, buggering around with coal fired power plants while places such as France have over 80 percent of their energy supplied by nuclear.

- Peter.

Oh, maybe the fact that many of them have gone way, way over budget had something to do with it.

Tell me of another industry that would be profitable except for protests by the dreaded eco-freaks, a crowd that, as we can all agree, have absolutely no rights in this country or anywhere for that matter.

Where does France stash its nuclear waste?

cmac2012 · #58 01-03-2009, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Ha!

Bot, don't tell me I've gotten under your skin?

MS Fowler · #59 01-03-2009, 06:33 AM

There are much better ways to spin a generator.

I doubt that there are any ways to spin a generator that are without some environmental impact that someone would find objectionable.
We have a hydro-electric plant a few miles from my house. Its basically free energy; run remotely from Philadelphia with 2 people on-site. It has been equipped with a fish ladder to allow fish to go upstream as demanded by environmentalists. And yet, there are those who still protest the effects of damming a river.

Nuclear is not perfect, but it is part of the solution, as is coal, natural gas, tidal, wind, and solar.

We just need to find an endless supply of the dilithium crystals that powered the Starship Enterprise.

RichC · #60 01-03-2009, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

You mean move off of the floodplain?

Real smart advice.
From the guy in Louisiana, that runs from hurricanes.