Ithaca 37
New member
Don't forget that as almost every one of these dams fill up with silt they hold less water and eventually become worthless for storing water.
The truth about the dams
- Thread starter Ithaca 37
- Start date
LMAO Buzz....
Your talking in the low Billions $$$ for the dams at best...
Social security had 1.5 Trillion dollars siphoned off from it... That was over and above what got paid to seniors... Now if you look at the little number on the other side of the decimal... That is still so much larger than the numbers you are talking about the dams dealing with...
[/QUOTE]Do You Want Proof that the above $1.5 Trillion in Social Security Trust Fund so-called assets are actually no real assets at all, but just a bunch of empty IOUs - - just pieces of paper - - and government spent all the surplus on other stuff??
Your talking in the low Billions $$$ for the dams at best...
Social security had 1.5 Trillion dollars siphoned off from it... That was over and above what got paid to seniors... Now if you look at the little number on the other side of the decimal... That is still so much larger than the numbers you are talking about the dams dealing with...
[/QUOTE]Do You Want Proof that the above $1.5 Trillion in Social Security Trust Fund so-called assets are actually no real assets at all, but just a bunch of empty IOUs - - just pieces of paper - - and government spent all the surplus on other stuff??
Theres one little quote I found...
http://home.att.net/~mwhodges/soc_sec.htm
It's even got lots of little bar graphs and things....
Lets see... $12.8 Trillion that still looks like a bigger number yet of the ones you posted... matter of fact, the numbers look to be thousnads of percetages bigger than the numbers you came up with, and I have only been searching for less than 3 minutes...
Hmm.... Lets see what else we can find from other sources about this ass stomping your giving me..
Before I go on, a simple google search or even the lesser search engines would have made it so you didn't look so silly...
and to think you were spouting crap here not more than a month or so ago about you not stating any thing you didn't know about to make yourself look foolish...
Hmmmm...
Back to this silly little search seeing as it is you who thinks making people look foolish is so important...
This is just a little side note for any interested...
Even though the dams create huge sums of money from tax payers, they don't compair even a little to the sums of money spent and the money that will be robbed from us all if this goes thru...
The revenue robbed in one month for SS would pretty much buy all the dams in the US....
The future of the dams while yes would be expensive come no where near the amounts of moneys needed to support the SS system...
And that will be for only one year...
LMAO Buzz....
$200 Billion....
I just looked at your numbers and all of them added up together doesn't come to this one, and it is only for one year of projected moneys that will be needed for one year...
Heck, the Mexicans don't have much of a SS system and they still spend as much a year as you are talking about for the dams...
I think this post is long enough for now...
Just because I don't do these silly searches all the time Buzz, don't mean I can't...
It isn't a hard process and when some one is wanting to rub my nose in some thing that is so lop sided and silly as this....
Well....
Theres your answers...
If any one else is interested...
Type "Social Security Spending" into your search...
You will come up with litterally millions of sights to look at... mine came up with 6,290,000 results...
Got any more ass stomping you want to do Buzz???
I guess I should put a little conclusion statement to make it look kind of official...
In conclusion...
While Buzz thinks a few billion is the end all numbers to his argument, it was not hard to conclude that social security spending far exceeds the monies spent on dams.
The dollars going into dams is in the low billions while the dollars spent on Social Security is in the Trillions.
This for reference to put the whole argument into perspective is like spending pennies for the dams compared to hundreds of dollars for social security.
There is no comparison...
In conclusion...
While Buzz thinks a few billion is the end all numbers to his argument, it was not hard to conclude that social security spending far exceeds the monies spent on dams.
The dollars going into dams is in the low billions while the dollars spent on Social Security is in the Trillions.
This for reference to put the whole argument into perspective is like spending pennies for the dams compared to hundreds of dollars for social security.
There is no comparison...
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Elky,
I think Buzz made his alltime most stupid comment on this one! I'm just going to sit back and watch him twist in the wind for while. Buzz, more data please. You are several trillion behind after round one.
I think Buzz made his alltime most stupid comment on this one! I'm just going to sit back and watch him twist in the wind for while. Buzz, more data please. You are several trillion behind after round one.
Looks to me like you really thrashed him Buzz. Way to go. If we could somehow harness all of the energy you expend researching and spouting off all of your bullshit, we could remove the dams and still have more power left over.
Way to go. If we could somehow harness all of the energy you expend researching and spouting off all of your bullshit, we could remove the dams and still have more power left over.I don't think he will come up with any thing, or if he does, it will be some thing where he is reverting back to the grade school play ground tactics (Tack Ticks ).
He only does one of two things when he loses...
Either shuts up and moves on or goes into verbal tirades and attacks...
Never concedes or apologieses (sp)... Never... So, that is all I see coming out of this argument, nothing more, nothing less... Would you like to put another case of beer on that one...
).He only does one of two things when he loses...
Either shuts up and moves on or goes into verbal tirades and attacks...
Never concedes or apologieses (sp)... Never... So, that is all I see coming out of this argument, nothing more, nothing less...
Would you like to put another case of beer on that one... BuzzH
Well-known member
Hey Cheese, between you and BHR, you guys should take a second grade math class as well as a basic comprehension course. Many of the costs I posted are YEARLY costs...not included is the subsidized initial costs of the dams...which is in the TRILLIONS of dollars.
Also, if you want to play the projection game on S.S. we can play it on the costs associated with dams as well.
The examples I gave (the TVA, and the Snake/Columbia dams) are only a few...theres THOUSANDS more dams and irrigation projects that have the same dismal subsidized numbers.
I also didnt include farm subsidizies associated with below cost irrigation.
I also didnt include any other environmental costs...like salination of irrigating marginal lands in AZ, MT, WY, CO, etc.
I also didnt include the mitigation costs on flooded tribal lands.
Oh, and I didnt include the 200-300 billion the tribes intend to sue the federal government over when salmon runs are further depleted.
I also didnt include all the legal expenses associated with the dams projects or Bureau of Reclamation and Corp of Engineers budgets over the last 50+ years either.
Still think we're not in the many trillions of dollars?
Oh, and as a side note...S.S. WOULD be the most solvent retirement program in the history of the U.S. if....the same idiots that authorized irrational dam building, could keep their hands off it.
Also, if you want to play the projection game on S.S. we can play it on the costs associated with dams as well.
The examples I gave (the TVA, and the Snake/Columbia dams) are only a few...theres THOUSANDS more dams and irrigation projects that have the same dismal subsidized numbers.
I also didnt include farm subsidizies associated with below cost irrigation.
I also didnt include any other environmental costs...like salination of irrigating marginal lands in AZ, MT, WY, CO, etc.
I also didnt include the mitigation costs on flooded tribal lands.
Oh, and I didnt include the 200-300 billion the tribes intend to sue the federal government over when salmon runs are further depleted.
I also didnt include all the legal expenses associated with the dams projects or Bureau of Reclamation and Corp of Engineers budgets over the last 50+ years either.
Still think we're not in the many trillions of dollars?
Oh, and as a side note...S.S. WOULD be the most solvent retirement program in the history of the U.S. if....the same idiots that authorized irrational dam building, could keep their hands off it.
LOL Butz...
some of the numbers I put in there weren't projection costs, it is the cost of SS...
I didn't want to take that much time looking it all up, you may like to do it while you are at work on the tax payer $$$ but, there are far better things to argue about and now you will be bringing semantics into your arguments instead of just plain facts
The U.S. plain and simple doesn't spend more on dams every year than it does with SS, plus as I have stated before, and I will bring it up again.
You don't seem to offset any of the $$$ of the cost with the amount brought in by the power they generate.
I have mentioned that the SS system only brings in $$$ by a shake down method plus any and all excess is syphened off for other wasteful spending, the excess is more than enough per year to offset your dam spending, matter of fact, it may be one of hte places the money is coming from...
some of the numbers I put in there weren't projection costs, it is the cost of SS...
I didn't want to take that much time looking it all up, you may like to do it while you are at work on the tax payer $$$ but, there are far better things to argue about and now you will be bringing semantics into your arguments instead of just plain facts
The U.S. plain and simple doesn't spend more on dams every year than it does with SS, plus as I have stated before, and I will bring it up again.
You don't seem to offset any of the $$$ of the cost with the amount brought in by the power they generate.
I have mentioned that the SS system only brings in $$$ by a shake down method plus any and all excess is syphened off for other wasteful spending, the excess is more than enough per year to offset your dam spending, matter of fact, it may be one of hte places the money is coming from...
OOPS, Just saw I made a typo of your name..
Actually looks pretty good, I think since you feel it is a great thing to do, I will return the favor...
Works for me, how about you, or now are you going to be sending off a bunch of whiney e-mails again to the overhead about how Elkchsr is being mean and vindictive? ...
So, not only now have we gotten the fact down that SS is far more costly to operate, but Butz just made a new nick name in the process...
Its wonderful how the world works in mysterious ways some times...
Actually looks pretty good, I think since you feel it is a great thing to do, I will return the favor...
Works for me, how about you, or now are you going to be sending off a bunch of whiney e-mails again to the overhead about how Elkchsr is being mean and vindictive? ...
So, not only now have we gotten the fact down that SS is far more costly to operate, but Butz just made a new nick name in the process...
Its wonderful how the world works in mysterious ways some times...
BuzzH
Well-known member
Cheese,
Really, do you know how to read?
Can you explain how the BPA can make money on the power they produce selling it for 15% below the market value?
It isnt semantics, its called facts.
Really, do you know how to read?
Can you explain how the BPA can make money on the power they produce selling it for 15% below the market value?
It isnt semantics, its called facts.
Butz...
HAHAHA!!!!
Your a very funny individual indeed...
Putting more words into my post to offset your mistake...
I never said any thing about them making a profit now did I, it's a subsidy... You need to dig a little deeper than that...
It is now, but give it a few more posts and you need to start digging...
Then the word play starts to come in, just like this one... ...
First loses an argument, then start adding extra "STUFF" into what the other side says until others start to believe the LIES including yourself...
Your a very easy read any more Butz...
and you stated you only talk about those things you are 100% sure of...
HAHAHA!!!!
Your a very funny individual indeed...
Putting more words into my post to offset your mistake...
I never said any thing about them making a profit now did I, it's a subsidy... You need to dig a little deeper than that...
It is now, but give it a few more posts and you need to start digging...
Then the word play starts to come in, just like this one...
...First loses an argument, then start adding extra "STUFF" into what the other side says until others start to believe the LIES including yourself...
Your a very easy read any more Butz...
and you stated you only talk about those things you are 100% sure of...
BuzzH
Well-known member
Look at cheese...he's starting to run...
So, it isnt "fair" to bring in the TOTAL costs of dams since they were built and project their costs, but its fair to "project" numbers and total S.S. costs?
Better take that economics course Cheese...
So, it isnt "fair" to bring in the TOTAL costs of dams since they were built and project their costs, but its fair to "project" numbers and total S.S. costs?
Better take that economics course Cheese...
Run???
Butz...
and again you add more into some one else’s post... Come on now, we can't have any of that, post your own stuff.....
I don't think I have added the total costs into what SS has cost since inception, but if you like, I suppose I can do another search, and again, with out even looking (yet) would find hands down, far more has been and will be spent on SS then dams could ever do...
Socialistic spending is always far more expensive for a population as a whole than infrastructure spending.
and the economics course thing... I did take the course already... got a 4.0, I was working for a 10, but no matter how much information I came up or how hard I tried, they just wouldn't give me any thing better than that...
I have a feeling you spent to much time sleeping in your econ class, it is very apparent on how you try to worm your numbers around to fit a lost argument...
I still haven't seen even since the inception of the dams, any thing that would come close to the numbers SS generates...
Do you have any thing better yet???
I'll be waiting... I hope not for long...
Butz...
and again you add more into some one else’s post... Come on now, we can't have any of that, post your own stuff..
...I don't think I have added the total costs into what SS has cost since inception, but if you like, I suppose I can do another search, and again, with out even looking (yet) would find hands down, far more has been and will be spent on SS then dams could ever do...
Socialistic spending is always far more expensive for a population as a whole than infrastructure spending.
and the economics course thing... I did take the course already... got a 4.0, I was working for a 10, but no matter how much information I came up or how hard I tried, they just wouldn't give me any thing better than that...
I have a feeling you spent to much time sleeping in your econ class, it is very apparent on how you try to worm your numbers around to fit a lost argument...
I still haven't seen even since the inception of the dams, any thing that would come close to the numbers SS generates...
Do you have any thing better yet???
I'll be waiting... I hope not for long...
Ithaca 37
New member
Here's some more facts about the dams from Reed Burkholder. Redd was the first guy to actually start doing economic analysis on the dams from the point of view of protecting the salmon.
"When federal dam builders completed the dams downstream of Lewiston in the mid-1970s, the fish runs of central Idaho declined so quickly that all wild salmon seasons were closed by 1978. Federal salmon savers tried to rescue the runs and spent millions, but Idaho's wild salmon fishing seasons have remained closed for 27 consecutive years.
How can society correct this problem of wilderness areas in the Snake River Basin that no longer have healthy anadromous fish runs? We need to remove downstream reservoirs and restore downstream river. Our congressmen need to authorize dam removal beginning with Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental and Ice Harbor — four federal dams in southeastern Washington on the lower Snake River. Idaho has much to gain by this action. A recent economic study estimates $544 million annually in economic activity in Idaho if the salmon and steelhead runs return to the levels of the 1950s and '60s.
But how can people unaware of the high cost and low value of big dams accept dam removal? They need the facts. Let me mention a few.
Regarding agriculture: The four lower Snake River dams do not serve the agricultural community with irrigation storage or irrigation diversion into canals. Farms of the Moscow, Lewiston and Grangeville area are watered by rain water; canals are not used in this region to deliver irrigation water. Indeed, the reservoirs are so low in elevation (lower than the bottom of Hells Canyon) that they are hundreds and sometimes thousands of feet below the farms.
Regarding the navigation waterway: The reservoirs flooded the old railroad track, and the Corps of Engineers built a new one. Trains operate on it daily. The sparsely used waterway is perhaps the most harmful transportation system in our region, and not just for salmon. The reservoirs permanently disturbed 35,000 acres of what used to be farms, ranches, orchards, villages, and fish and wildlife habitat (the rail track utilizes about 400 acres and is benign by comparison). The four dams flooded 140 miles of a very large Western river, the Snake (the rail track is harmless to rivers.) The reservoirs and dams caused the coho salmon to go extinct and the Redfish Lake sockeye to become functionally extinct. Lamprey also disappeared in the Clearwater and Grand Ronde basins where they used to be plentiful (the railroad is benign to fish).
Regarding electricity: The old technology inside the dam's powerhouses produces relatively small amounts of energy that are severely unreliable. To assure adequate supply and reliability, the growing Northwest has turned increasingly to more modern, less harmful technologies powered by coal, natural gas and wind. Idaho Power gives us a good example of what's happening around the Northwest. Once upon a time Idaho Power was all hydro. Now it also uses coal, natural gas and wind. In fact, during the past twelve months, coal generators produced 55 percent of its generation. I suggest that removing our most harmful dams is a good and beneficial path toward salmon recovery and a stronger economy."
Reed Burkholder, a Boise piano teacher, was in 1992 one of the first people to urge breaching the four lower Snake River dams. Reach him at 323-8355.
"When federal dam builders completed the dams downstream of Lewiston in the mid-1970s, the fish runs of central Idaho declined so quickly that all wild salmon seasons were closed by 1978. Federal salmon savers tried to rescue the runs and spent millions, but Idaho's wild salmon fishing seasons have remained closed for 27 consecutive years.
How can society correct this problem of wilderness areas in the Snake River Basin that no longer have healthy anadromous fish runs? We need to remove downstream reservoirs and restore downstream river. Our congressmen need to authorize dam removal beginning with Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental and Ice Harbor — four federal dams in southeastern Washington on the lower Snake River. Idaho has much to gain by this action. A recent economic study estimates $544 million annually in economic activity in Idaho if the salmon and steelhead runs return to the levels of the 1950s and '60s.
But how can people unaware of the high cost and low value of big dams accept dam removal? They need the facts. Let me mention a few.
Regarding agriculture: The four lower Snake River dams do not serve the agricultural community with irrigation storage or irrigation diversion into canals. Farms of the Moscow, Lewiston and Grangeville area are watered by rain water; canals are not used in this region to deliver irrigation water. Indeed, the reservoirs are so low in elevation (lower than the bottom of Hells Canyon) that they are hundreds and sometimes thousands of feet below the farms.
Regarding the navigation waterway: The reservoirs flooded the old railroad track, and the Corps of Engineers built a new one. Trains operate on it daily. The sparsely used waterway is perhaps the most harmful transportation system in our region, and not just for salmon. The reservoirs permanently disturbed 35,000 acres of what used to be farms, ranches, orchards, villages, and fish and wildlife habitat (the rail track utilizes about 400 acres and is benign by comparison). The four dams flooded 140 miles of a very large Western river, the Snake (the rail track is harmless to rivers.) The reservoirs and dams caused the coho salmon to go extinct and the Redfish Lake sockeye to become functionally extinct. Lamprey also disappeared in the Clearwater and Grand Ronde basins where they used to be plentiful (the railroad is benign to fish).
Regarding electricity: The old technology inside the dam's powerhouses produces relatively small amounts of energy that are severely unreliable. To assure adequate supply and reliability, the growing Northwest has turned increasingly to more modern, less harmful technologies powered by coal, natural gas and wind. Idaho Power gives us a good example of what's happening around the Northwest. Once upon a time Idaho Power was all hydro. Now it also uses coal, natural gas and wind. In fact, during the past twelve months, coal generators produced 55 percent of its generation. I suggest that removing our most harmful dams is a good and beneficial path toward salmon recovery and a stronger economy."
Reed Burkholder, a Boise piano teacher, was in 1992 one of the first people to urge breaching the four lower Snake River dams. Reach him at 323-8355.
cheese- Take out all of the "borrowing" from Social Security and tell me how it would not be soluable forever. If the money was kept in a separate fund, used only for Social Security, it would not be an issue today. (SS would not have to use tax dollars to supplement it at all, unlike the dams). The dams themselves are not self supporting and are subsidized (see the difference). You maybe should have went on to econ 201. Social Security money tends to "supplement" all the other pork barrel expenses congress places onto expenditure bills. It is being used as a tax put toward the general fund instead of as a retirement program.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Matt,
First of all social security is a TAX. Second it would fail in time if we stay the course even if the "trust fund" was not raided. It's a pay as you go system that is a house of cards waiting to colapse. When it was first set up aprox 13 people paid in for every person that collected if my memory serves me right. Today it is 3 to 1. In a few years when the baby boomers reach retirement age, it will be 2 to 1. When it first started the benefit age was 65 and average life expectancey was 61 or 62. Most people died before they could collect. Today we are pushing 80 as a life expectancy and the retirement age is the same. Without changing the any of the factors S. S. will colapse. How much better would the economy be if I as an individual had control over my own money, how to invest it, or spend, or pass it on to my heirs if I choose to. Guess the government thinks we are to stupid to manage our own money and can do a better job of it for us. And it is welfare or income redistribution. Otherwise everyone would contribute the same and collect the same. The rich do support the system more than the poor do however (unless your a smart guy like John Edwards that knows the loopholes) but it dosn't take much contribution to qualify for the maximum benefit.
First of all social security is a TAX. Second it would fail in time if we stay the course even if the "trust fund" was not raided. It's a pay as you go system that is a house of cards waiting to colapse. When it was first set up aprox 13 people paid in for every person that collected if my memory serves me right. Today it is 3 to 1. In a few years when the baby boomers reach retirement age, it will be 2 to 1. When it first started the benefit age was 65 and average life expectancey was 61 or 62. Most people died before they could collect. Today we are pushing 80 as a life expectancy and the retirement age is the same. Without changing the any of the factors S. S. will colapse. How much better would the economy be if I as an individual had control over my own money, how to invest it, or spend, or pass it on to my heirs if I choose to. Guess the government thinks we are to stupid to manage our own money and can do a better job of it for us. And it is welfare or income redistribution. Otherwise everyone would contribute the same and collect the same. The rich do support the system more than the poor do however (unless your a smart guy like John Edwards that knows the loopholes) but it dosn't take much contribution to qualify for the maximum benefit.
LMAO Mutz...
Your a funny guy...
Don't be putting more words into my posts than I have already, I can make them long enough as it is...
I have never mentioned any thing about how we can fix the problem with the SS fund raiding, and yes its a big one...
It can never...never...never be solvent with this activity, plus it has been run so far into the hole, I don't believe it can ever be reserected on its own accord...
That is another can of worms unto itself and has nothing to do with this debate.
You need to focus a little on what was being said and not go off on different tangents unless it actually valid, which in this case it is only meant to start a fight... Your not very sneaky, or even very good at it...
I think that works pretty good, you guys love to put nick names on others, whether they fit or not, and now you two will have them for as long as you pass on the love..
Mutz and Butz...
That even fits, kind of like the Bobbsy twins of old...
Back to point...
Mutz...
If you can bring up a valid argument on this instead of just spouting some thing that doesn't fit, then bring it on...
If you set up a good plan on how "YOU" will fix the raiding of SS...
Then you today will win a convert, if you don't, and keep it shallow, it will be another day the pup goes home with his tail between its legs...
The ball is in your court, you can either take it home in shame, or serve it back...
PS...
the thing with the school GPA....
Show me yours and I'll show you mine..
Your a funny guy...
Don't be putting more words into my posts than I have already, I can make them long enough as it is...
I have never mentioned any thing about how we can fix the problem with the SS fund raiding, and yes its a big one...
It can never...never...never be solvent with this activity, plus it has been run so far into the hole, I don't believe it can ever be reserected on its own accord...
That is another can of worms unto itself and has nothing to do with this debate.
You need to focus a little on what was being said and not go off on different tangents unless it actually valid, which in this case it is only meant to start a fight... Your not very sneaky, or even very good at it...
I think that works pretty good, you guys love to put nick names on others, whether they fit or not, and now you two will have them for as long as you pass on the love..
Mutz and Butz...
That even fits, kind of like the Bobbsy twins of old...
Back to point...
Mutz...
If you can bring up a valid argument on this instead of just spouting some thing that doesn't fit, then bring it on...
If you set up a good plan on how "YOU" will fix the raiding of SS...
Then you today will win a convert, if you don't, and keep it shallow, it will be another day the pup goes home with his tail between its legs...
The ball is in your court, you can either take it home in shame, or serve it back...
PS...
the thing with the school GPA....
Show me yours and I'll show you mine..
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Matt,
Now for the benefits of the dams. Pay attention because this is econ 501. I'm going to use a federal tree as my example instead of the dams because I can illustrate the point better with it.
The F. S. offers a below cost timber cut (subsidized). The forest service employees are paid a salary. Their overhead (vehichles, gas, buildings, ect) is reimbersed to some degree which creates jobs. The logger gets a job. The truck driver gets work. The mechanic gets work. The equiptment supplier gets work. The equiptment manufacturer gets work. The lumber mill get's work. The sawmill eguiptment outfit gets work. The local stores and grocery provide for the workers and get work. The workers have bankers, doctors, dentists, barbers, ect. The lumber goes to the lumber yard and provides work. The lumber yard provides to the builder who hires carpenters who build a home that when done provide an additional value which gets taxed in the form of property taxes. This annual tax provides for schools and infrasrtucter for the community for the forseeable future. Heck the the enviromentalists and the lawyers even get involved in the process and the local paper creates jobs by covering the debate.
And all these JOBS provided by this subsidized cut pay into Social Security! The dams and the power they produce, the irrigation they provide, the flood control, the drinking water, the recreation, ect do the same thing. THEY PROVIDE JOBS! Jobs that pay taxes. Jobs that provide a higher standard of living. Get IT?
Now for the benefits of the dams. Pay attention because this is econ 501. I'm going to use a federal tree as my example instead of the dams because I can illustrate the point better with it.
The F. S. offers a below cost timber cut (subsidized). The forest service employees are paid a salary. Their overhead (vehichles, gas, buildings, ect) is reimbersed to some degree which creates jobs. The logger gets a job. The truck driver gets work. The mechanic gets work. The equiptment supplier gets work. The equiptment manufacturer gets work. The lumber mill get's work. The sawmill eguiptment outfit gets work. The local stores and grocery provide for the workers and get work. The workers have bankers, doctors, dentists, barbers, ect. The lumber goes to the lumber yard and provides work. The lumber yard provides to the builder who hires carpenters who build a home that when done provide an additional value which gets taxed in the form of property taxes. This annual tax provides for schools and infrasrtucter for the community for the forseeable future. Heck the the enviromentalists and the lawyers even get involved in the process and the local paper creates jobs by covering the debate.
And all these JOBS provided by this subsidized cut pay into Social Security! The dams and the power they produce, the irrigation they provide, the flood control, the drinking water, the recreation, ect do the same thing. THEY PROVIDE JOBS! Jobs that pay taxes. Jobs that provide a higher standard of living. Get IT?
Similar threads
