Communist California to require Solar Panels on all new homes

[Hutch Starskey]

A contractor building 200 houses pays much less than a contractor building one.

So?
You still have not answered question, why force someone to put solar panels on their own house?
It makes no sense to force that horse shit on anyone...

A contractor who builds a new house for another has no legal right after the house is sold.

Typical government overreach...

Spending $20 per month to save $80 to $300 per month sounds pretty good to me.

Where are you getting your numbers from? I'll be the first to admit I'm no calculator wiz, so I went to Lending Tree mortgage calculator to compare your numbers.

According to the mortgage calculator, at the current rate of interest, your extra bill would be about $100.00 a month based on a 30 year mortgage. With a 15 year mortgage, about $150.00 a month. I used the capital of 20K for the calculations since that seems to be the general consensus of what a solar panel system would cost.

LendingTree.com - Compare Lenders

This is the average.

Now, keep in mind, your number is fixed for thirty years. The number I provided will steadily rise over those thirty years.



The Cost of Living in California - SmartAsset

Utilities
Californians pay relatively low utility bills. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Californians consume an average of 562 kWh per month. They pay an average of 16.25 cents/kWh and have an average monthly bill of $91.26. For reference, the most expensive average monthly bill is Hawaii ($187.59) and the cheapest is New Mexico ($77.79). The U.S. average is $114.11.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Absolutely. One of the things most buyers look for in a home is future expenses. How good are the windows? How old is the furnace or AC? How old is the roof and things like that.

So in the future, a couple looks at a house with 30 year old solar panels. The first thing that would cross my mind is how many of those I'm going to have to replace in the next ten years. Or if allowed by law, how much is it going to cost me to have those things removed and have a regular roof installed?

If a house has a 30-year-old solar system on the roof, it is almost certain to need a new ROOF soon.

In the late 70's, my Father had solar water heating installed for the pool and the house. That part of the roof that was under the panels looked brand new. Kinda like your farmers tan.

You’re missing the point, No one’s against alternative energy. But everyone’s against being forced into alternative energy. People that want to force people into alternative energy are fucking cowards and should be treated as such...

People resented being forced to install flushing toilets as well. We survived.

No one was forced to install flush toilets, moron.

Really?

They were never added to the building code?
Hmm. Do you believe that you could build a home without one?

 

[AntonToo]

You didn't get the point - 19 kWh is maybe what it costs to buy off the grid but with those with solar production only a fraction of electricity comes form the grid.

I pay less than 12 cents.................And if other people weren't paying for your system..........the cost of over the lifetime of your grid would cost more than the 19 you posted.

You pay 12c...oook and? how does that help ares with more expesive electricity? Does it help people in NY that will pay 20 or Hawaii that pay 30?

I still pay monthly fee for the grid and "other people" (since when is me paying less taxes equates to OTHER PEOPLE?) pay for all kinds of things starting with expenses of making the grid black-out proof that solar energy realy helps with.

I still pay monthly fee for the grid and "other people"

You never did say how much your bill used to be, how much it is now.......

Yes I did. Unit is expected to produce 10500 kWh a year, which is a bit over 100% of my expected energy consumption.

Other than energy you also pay for base grid charge.

My last bill was $15.

Yes I did. Unit is expected to produce 10500 kWh a year, which is a bit over 100% of my expected energy consumption.

No you didn't. You said how much less power you bought.

My last bill was $15.

Thanks. How much were they before you installed solar?

You don’t get it - electrical bills fluctuate month to month. Everything being equal you will spend more on electricity in hotter months due to more AC use. My march-aprill bill (before) is not directly comparable to April-May (after) bill.

What matters is annual output and consumption, which I gave you. My avg. annual bill was $~200 and because I now should produce over 100% of electricity consumed and my bill should now be about $15-20 monthly.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It would seem to me that they would realize a considerable payback on their investment during those 20 years and when the house is sold with solar generating capacity it would surely draw a higher price.

I don't know about that. I mean, if I'm looking to buy a 20 year old house and see those things on the roof, my first thought is "how many of those MF's am I going to have to replace in the next ten years?"

Solar panels lose performance as time goes on. Also their life expectancy is based on the environment of the house. Solar panels lose production if they are in very windy areas where branches and pebbles are blown around that can scratch the surface reducing it's performance. In low wind high sun areas, that heat does a number on those panels as well.

Solar panels require pretty low maintenance. Unlike generators which are composed of moving components which require repair or replacement, solar panels do not have moving parts that can rust or breakdown. About the only routine maintenance is spraying them down with a garden hose. The panels are warrantied for 20 or 25 years and with the new central inverter they could last for a number of decades.

Yes, if it's a single level home. Two family or two story homes would be a bit more of a challenge.

I don't know about that. I mean, if I'm looking to buy a 20 year old house and see those things on the roof, my first thought is "how many of those MF's am I going to have to replace in the next ten years?"

That's part of the deal with any system or structure of any home being sold. That calculation affects the purchase price just as it does now.

 

[Flopper]

This regulation is there for a purpose whether you acknowledge that or not.

This means that going foreward, new housing will not require any large upscaling of centralized power production. Fewer production facilities running for fewer hours a day. Simpler, more localized and efficient transmission infrasructure. Excess will be put back into the grid and used locally in real time. If you can't see the benefit of that going foreward, then you aren't trying to.
Lastly, less dependency on a huge, outdated and inefficient power grid and transmission system is far better for national security.

Why do you care where the power comes from as long as it works when you flip the switch?

I don't care where it comes from as long as it doesn't cost me or I'm forced where to get it from. It's one thing when Democrats control things and spend our tax money the way they want, but it's quite another to burden individuals with mandated excessive costs for Democrat obsessions.

I think government is too big as it is, and that goes for federal, state, county and even city. The less government in my life, the better. I don't want government telling me what kind of power I must have for my utilities, how good of windows I must buy, how good of insulation I must have in my home, or how much power I'm allowed to use. It's none of their damn business.

Progress costs.
Cars cost more than buggys.
Smartphones cost more than the kitchen rotary dial.
MRIs cost more than leeches, etc.

The truth is, the more companies that manufacture and install solar, the lower the pricepoint.
It becomes cheaper every year.

In the future, the roofing material itself will be the photo voltaics.

And that's fine with me if people buy it on their own without taxpayers footing much of the bill. Also so they aren't forced to buy them.

Government didn't force people to buy cars, citiznes bought them because of it's advantages.
Government didn't force people to buy smart phones, people bought them freely because of their advantages.
Government didn't force anybody to get an MRI. People freely chose to get those for themselves.

The govt built the interstate highway system that made the market for cars boom.
The govt built or subsidized every bit of large infrastructure in this country, including the internet, which allowed for massive business expansion around them. The govt has always been the driver of progress.

I have not problem with government doing things that benefit most if not ALL people. But forcing somebody to pay and use solar panels is not benefiting anybody but the saps that believe in global warming.

California is not like most other states in many ways. What is the right thing for California may well not be the right thing for other states.

Minimum wage is 35% higher than most states. The average price of a home is 48% higher than the national average. Per Capital Personal income is 6th highest in the nation. California ranks 4th highest in the nation for higher education and in the top 40% for K-12. The Median age is one of the lowest in the country.

A survey conducted in California about Global Warning and the state response revealed:
A majority of Californians say the effects of global warming are already occurring.
80% said global warming was a serious threat to the state.
67% supported the state efforts
Most Californians (56%), including majorities across all age and income groups, say they would be willing to pay more for electricity generated by renewable sources to reduce global warming.

The state is not cramming renewable energy down the throats of citizens but rather responding to demand from Californians that government take actions. I'm sure this is not the situation in many other states and what California is doing would not be appropriate.
Californians' Views on Climate Change - Public Policy Institute of California

 

[Hutch Starskey]

A new report shows that the US government provided about $6 billion annually in financial support to the oil, gas, and coal industries between 2013 and 2015. That's over four times the amount that went to clean energy, which received $1.3 billion.

Oil, gas, and coal industries get a shocking amount of funding from the US government, a new report shows

Thanks for the link.
Shockingly, they didn't give any specifics.
Try again?

Yes they did in supporting links.

Her eis a tiny exmaple:

In Ohio, Marathon Petroleum is benefitting from a 15-year tax credit for retaining 1,650 jobs and a 10-year tax credit for creating 100 new jobs. The subsidy is worth $78.5m, according to the Good Jobs First database. “I think Marathon always wanted to be here,” Republican governor John Kasich said in 2011. “All we’re doing is helping them.” In 2011, Kasich was named as the top recipient of oil and gas donations in Ohio, having received $213, 519. The same year Kasich appointed Marathon Petroleum’s CEO to the board of Jobs Ohio, a semi-private group “in charge of the economic growth in the state of Ohio”.

Thanks. I clicked through several of the links and didn't see any oil subsidies.

In Ohio, Marathon Petroleum is benefitting from a 15-year tax credit for retaining 1,650 jobs and a 10-year tax credit for creating 100 new jobs. The subsidy is worth $78.5m, according to the Good Jobs First database.

That's not an oil subsidy, that's a job subsidy. And it doesn't back the previous claim....Oil, gas, and coal industries get a shocking amount of funding from the US government

Keep trying, there must be some out there..........

Nonsense, this oil company DIRECTLY BENEFITED from these subsidies, directly made more competetive. Certainly that counts as an example of oil industry getting subsidies.

As far as I can tell, any decent sized company that promised to retain "1,650 jobs and create 100 new jobs"
could probably get some sort of tax credit from that state, or another. You can argue for and against states doing that for all sorts of reasons, but Ohio doing that doesn't help the original claim.....

the US government provided about $6 billion annually in financial support to the oil, gas, and coal industries between 2013 and 2015

I know it's difficult for you, but try to focus.

So, you're arguing that the govt subsidies for coal is good but a subsidy for an industry that employs three times as many is not?
Explain that logic.

Are there three times as many solar jobs as coal jobs?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Nonsense, this oil company DIRECTLY BENEFITED from these subsidies, directly made more competetive. Certainly that counts as an example of oil industry getting subsidies.

As far as I can tell, any decent sized company that promised to retain "1,650 jobs and create 100 new jobs"
could probably get some sort of tax credit from that state, or another. You can argue for and against states doing that for all sorts of reasons, but Ohio doing that doesn't help the original claim.....

the US government provided about $6 billion annually in financial support to the oil, gas, and coal industries between 2013 and 2015

I know it's difficult for you, but try to focus.

You can't even admit that a blatant oil company subsidy is a subsidy, so what the fuck is the point of me going to fetch you 1000 more?

You are drunk on stupid.

That's not an oil subsidy, you fuck head. And it's certainly not a federal subsidy.

It's a directsubsidy oil company recieved that made it more competetive.

Untill you can dispute even a single word of that sentence you need to stfu.

Subsidy: money given as part of the cost of something to help or encourage it to happen:

Your solar subsidy gives you money to encourage you to buy solar panels.

What did Ohio's subsidy encourage Marathon to do........?

What did Ohio's subsidy encourage Marathon to do........?

Retain and create jobs per your link, dope.

As far as I can tell, any decent sized company that promised to retain "1,650 jobs and create 100 new jobs

 

[Hutch Starskey]

As far as I can tell, any decent sized company that promised to retain "1,650 jobs and create 100 new jobs"
could probably get some sort of tax credit from that state, or another. You can argue for and against states doing that for all sorts of reasons, but Ohio doing that doesn't help the original claim.....

the US government provided about $6 billion annually in financial support to the oil, gas, and coal industries between 2013 and 2015

I know it's difficult for you, but try to focus.

You can't even admit that a blatant oil company subsidy is a subsidy, so what the fuck is the point of me going to fetch you 1000 more?

You are drunk on stupid.

That's not an oil subsidy, you fuck head. And it's certainly not a federal subsidy.

It's a directsubsidy oil company recieved that made it more competetive.

Untill you can dispute even a single word of that sentence you need to stfu.

Subsidy: money given as part of the cost of something to help or encourage it to happen:

Your solar subsidy gives you money to encourage you to buy solar panels.

What did Ohio's subsidy encourage Marathon to do........?

I did not ask for the definition of the word subsidy. I asked what a subsidy was to you.

As you know, many Progressives erroneously consider tax deductions, available to any business, a subsidy, which it is not

There is only one definition.

 

[Markle]

The govt built the interstate highway system that made the market for cars boom.
The govt built or subsidized every bit of large infrastructure in this country, including the internet, which allowed for massive business expansion around them. The govt has always been the driver of progress.

The Federal Government built the interstate system as part of our military defense. President Eisenhower and the generals at the time saw how much Autobahns helped the Nazi's move military equipment and supplies quickly to supply their Blitzkrieg and how crippling it was when they ran out of their roads and railroads.

The vast majority of infrastructure is built by taxpayers, locally, agreeing to pay for THEIR roads, sewer, water, police, and fire. I don't recall the government paying for my first laptop, nor the software. Although, as a business expense I did deduct it from my gross income. I also don't recall government paying for a large part of my radio-telephone. The brand new Buick Century cost $12,000. and the radio-telephone $3,000. long before cell phones.

PROFIT has always been and always will be the driver of progress.

Profit needs a playing field, fool.

Did you ever notice the commerce that takes place around interstates? Is there a big box store in America that isn't within 5 min of an interstate?

Your point being?

Do you simply post for the sake of seeing your screen name or are they supposed to be relevant in some manner?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Californians refuse to be fossil fuel bitches like the people back east are.

That's right! Californians are happy to pay 40% more than the national average to stick it to fossil fuels.

Oh contraire' Tod, once the panels are in, your energy is free for the life of the home.

All that "free" energy, Californians should be paying less than the national average, not 40% more.

Over here they started to increase our water and sewer rates, so the media pressured the water department for an explanation.

Their explanation was that Cleveland was losing population all the time, so in order to make up the lost revenue from people that no longer live here, they had to increase the rates.

The less you use of a utility, the higher the rates go.

Californians refuse to be fossil fuel bitches like the people back east are.

That's right! Californians are happy to pay 40% more than the national average to stick it to fossil fuels.

Oh contraire' Tod, once the panels are in, your energy is free for the life of the home.

All that "free" energy, Californians should be paying less than the national average, not 40% more.

Over here they started to increase our water and sewer rates, so the media pressured the water department for an explanation.

Their explanation was that Cleveland was losing population all the time, so in order to make up the lost revenue from people that no longer live here, they had to increase the rates.

The less you use of a utility, the higher the rates go.

The less you use of a utility, the higher the rates go.

You just made a case for why solar will pay in the long run. People with wells don't give a damn about your water rates.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Progress costs.
Cars cost more than buggys.
Smartphones cost more than the kitchen rotary dial.
MRIs cost more than leeches, etc.

The truth is, the more companies that manufacture and install solar, the lower the pricepoint.
It becomes cheaper every year.

In the future, the roofing material itself will be the photo voltaics.

And that's fine with me if people buy it on their own without taxpayers footing much of the bill. Also so they aren't forced to buy them.

Government didn't force people to buy cars, citiznes bought them because of it's advantages.
Government didn't force people to buy smart phones, people bought them freely because of their advantages.
Government didn't force anybody to get an MRI. People freely chose to get those for themselves.

The govt built the interstate highway system that made the market for cars boom.
The govt built or subsidized every bit of large infrastructure in this country, including the internet, which allowed for massive business expansion around them. The govt has always been the driver of progress.

All the interstate highway system did is bankrupt the railroads. That was a private system that didn't require any tax money to be spent, and it was perfectly adequate for interstate travel. So the interstate highway system actually retarded the economic development of this country by diverting huge amounts of capital into a system that wasn't needed.

The governent had very little to do with with the development of the internet. I was responsible for perhaps one of the pieces out of the 20 that were needed to make it viable.

Sure, dope. All of those trucks on the interstate are retarding economic development.

Sure they are. Trains are much more efficient. Interstate trucking is viable only because the taxpayers are footing a big part of the cost.

Sure, dope. If only walmart would just choose to utilize the tracks that run up to their loading docks, then murica would finally be free.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Californians refuse to be fossil fuel bitches like the people back east are.

That's right! Californians are happy to pay 40% more than the national average to stick it to fossil fuels.

Oh contraire' Tod, once the panels are in, your energy is free for the life of the home.

All that "free" energy, Californians should be paying less than the national average, not 40% more.

Over here they started to increase our water and sewer rates, so the media pressured the water department for an explanation.

Their explanation was that Cleveland was losing population all the time, so in order to make up the lost revenue from people that no longer live here, they had to increase the rates.

The less you use of a utility, the higher the rates go.

Californians refuse to be fossil fuel bitches like the people back east are.

That's right! Californians are happy to pay 40% more than the national average to stick it to fossil fuels.

Oh contraire' Tod, once the panels are in, your energy is free for the life of the home.

All that "free" energy, Californians should be paying less than the national average, not 40% more.

Over here they started to increase our water and sewer rates, so the media pressured the water department for an explanation.

Their explanation was that Cleveland was losing population all the time, so in order to make up the lost revenue from people that no longer live here, they had to increase the rates.

The less you use of a utility, the higher the rates go.

The less you use of a utility, the higher the rates go.

You just made a case for why solar will pay in the long run. People with wells don't give a damn about your water rates.

Why should they? But we don't have many wells in the city.

 

[Rustic]

Californians refuse to be fossil fuel bitches like the people back east are.

That's right! Californians are happy to pay 40% more than the national average to stick it to fossil fuels.

Oh contraire' Tod, once the panels are in, your energy is free for the life of the home.

Lol
No, not at all...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't care where it comes from as long as it doesn't cost me or I'm forced where to get it from. It's one thing when Democrats control things and spend our tax money the way they want, but it's quite another to burden individuals with mandated excessive costs for Democrat obsessions.

I think government is too big as it is, and that goes for federal, state, county and even city. The less government in my life, the better. I don't want government telling me what kind of power I must have for my utilities, how good of windows I must buy, how good of insulation I must have in my home, or how much power I'm allowed to use. It's none of their damn business.

Progress costs.
Cars cost more than buggys.
Smartphones cost more than the kitchen rotary dial.
MRIs cost more than leeches, etc.

The truth is, the more companies that manufacture and install solar, the lower the pricepoint.
It becomes cheaper every year.

In the future, the roofing material itself will be the photo voltaics.

And that's fine with me if people buy it on their own without taxpayers footing much of the bill. Also so they aren't forced to buy them.

Government didn't force people to buy cars, citiznes bought them because of it's advantages.
Government didn't force people to buy smart phones, people bought them freely because of their advantages.
Government didn't force anybody to get an MRI. People freely chose to get those for themselves.

The govt built the interstate highway system that made the market for cars boom.
The govt built or subsidized every bit of large infrastructure in this country, including the internet, which allowed for massive business expansion around them. The govt has always been the driver of progress.

I have not problem with government doing things that benefit most if not ALL people. But forcing somebody to pay and use solar panels is not benefiting anybody but the saps that believe in global warming.

California is not like most other states in many ways. What is the right thing for California may well not be the right thing for other states.

Minimum wage is 35% higher than most states. The average price of a home is 48% higher than the national average. Per Capital Personal income is 6th highest in the nation. California ranks 4th highest in the nation for higher education and in the top 40% for K-12. The Median age is one of the lowest in the country.

A survey conducted in California about Global Warning and the state response revealed:
A majority of Californians say the effects of global warming are already occurring.
80% said global warming was a serious threat to the state.
67% supported the state efforts
Most Californians (56%), including majorities across all age and income groups, say they would be willing to pay more for electricity generated by renewable sources to reduce global warming.

The state is not cramming renewable energy down the throats of citizens but rather responding to demand from Californians that government take actions. I'm sure this is not the situation in many other states and what California is doing would not be appropriate.
Californians' Views on Climate Change - Public Policy Institute of California

Well then why doesn't Cali produce this more expensive energy instead of forcing people to buy solar panels? Make half of the state windmills for all I care.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I think it's smart governing.

Solar panels pay for themselfs in cheaper electrical bills and if you roll up-front cost into mortgage you'll probably not be paying more than for the same house without solar.

I guess that depends on where you live and what you use. My monthly electric bill is around 50 bucks a month. That's 600 bucks a year. Do you know how long it would take me just to break even on solar panels? And once you break even, how much more would you need to invest for replacement panels when those break down?

WOW! Your electric bill is more than 50% less than the State average?

Yep, that's what I pay.

Liar.
One brand new fridge alone is at least $150 a year.

Why would I lie about something like that? I'm telling you (and others have chimed in with the same claim) that my electric bill has been as low as $35.00 a month. Again, that's provided I'm not using a furnace or AC like I'm currently doing.

It would depend on what you are paying for electricity in the first place. Your claim is that your fridge is using $12.5 a month. Usually the fridge uses the most electricity in your home year round.

The fridge was just an example of one product in a home.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It would seem to me that they would realize a considerable payback on their investment during those 20 years and when the house is sold with solar generating capacity it would surely draw a higher price.

I don't know about that. I mean, if I'm looking to buy a 20 year old house and see those things on the roof, my first thought is "how many of those MF's am I going to have to replace in the next ten years?"

Solar panels lose performance as time goes on. Also their life expectancy is based on the environment of the house. Solar panels lose production if they are in very windy areas where branches and pebbles are blown around that can scratch the surface reducing it's performance. In low wind high sun areas, that heat does a number on those panels as well.

Solar panels require pretty low maintenance. Unlike generators which are composed of moving components which require repair or replacement, solar panels do not have moving parts that can rust or breakdown. About the only routine maintenance is spraying them down with a garden hose. The panels are warrantied for 20 or 25 years and with the new central inverter they could last for a number of decades.

Yes, if it's a single level home. Two family or two story homes would be a bit more of a challenge.

I don't know about that. I mean, if I'm looking to buy a 20 year old house and see those things on the roof, my first thought is "how many of those MF's am I going to have to replace in the next ten years?"

That's part of the deal with any system or structure of any home being sold. That calculation affects the purchase price just as it does now.

Well yes, exactly. That's why I challenge the idea that solar panels actually increase the value of a home. IMO, it would decrease the value if anything.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

California is the most capitalist place ever. Look at the cost of living and number of homeless.

Capitalism doesn't do that--liberalism does that.

.

Capitalism creates wealth. Socialism robs wealth.

If these Moon Bats would ever take a course in Economics they would understand simple things like that.

If they bothered to look at the Northeast liberal states, they would see those states are not far behind Commiefornia. Over 800K for a moderate house, 12 bucks for a pack of cigarettes, high taxation, government taking care of them from cradle to grave...........

You're such a liar. Or just a loser who hasn't been engaged in the housing market lately.


Post it up.

All you have to do is what I do, and that is watch the HGTV channel. Property Brothers is the best show, but they have other House Hunter programs that clearly show how little you get for your money in many liberal states.

Post up the median home prices for the states you're referring to.

 

[Markle]

Solar can't compete with fossil fuels.

These stupid Moon Bats don't seem to understand the significance of that.

I hear ya. Communists/Democrats can't tolerate freedom. They have to use force to get their agendas through. I don't have a problem with folks wanting solar panels. But i do have a problem with folks being forced to have them.

Sadly, the Communists are killing the California Golden Goose. They've seized complete control of the state. There's no checks & balances on them. They're rapidly leading the state to Third World disaster. Hopefully Californians will begin realizing that, and start booting them from power. It's not too late. They can still save their state.

California is the most capitalist place ever. Look at the cost of living and number of homeless.

Capitalism doesn't do that--liberalism does that.

.

Capitalism creates wealth. Socialism robs wealth.

If these Moon Bats would ever take a course in Economics they would understand simple things like that.

Capitalism creates wealth

.......for a very small percentage of users.

Have you always been this desperate or only since November 9, 2016?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I think it's smart governing.

Solar panels pay for themselfs in cheaper electrical bills and if you roll up-front cost into mortgage you'll probably not be paying more than for the same house without solar.

I guess that depends on where you live and what you use. My monthly electric bill is around 50 bucks a month. That's 600 bucks a year. Do you know how long it would take me just to break even on solar panels? And once you break even, how much more would you need to invest for replacement panels when those break down?

WOW! Your electric bill is more than 50% less than the State average?

Hell, mine is less that even that in the winter. (I think it was 38 bucks for March.)

Because you live in a trailer and can't afford anything to plug in no doubt.

Having no facts, you fling poo.

In other words: you concede.

You're a liar. You conceded then.

 

[bripat9643]

And that's fine with me if people buy it on their own without taxpayers footing much of the bill. Also so they aren't forced to buy them.

Government didn't force people to buy cars, citiznes bought them because of it's advantages.
Government didn't force people to buy smart phones, people bought them freely because of their advantages.
Government didn't force anybody to get an MRI. People freely chose to get those for themselves.

The govt built the interstate highway system that made the market for cars boom.
The govt built or subsidized every bit of large infrastructure in this country, including the internet, which allowed for massive business expansion around them. The govt has always been the driver of progress.

All the interstate highway system did is bankrupt the railroads. That was a private system that didn't require any tax money to be spent, and it was perfectly adequate for interstate travel. So the interstate highway system actually retarded the economic development of this country by diverting huge amounts of capital into a system that wasn't needed.

The governent had very little to do with with the development of the internet. I was responsible for perhaps one of the pieces out of the 20 that were needed to make it viable.

Sure, dope. All of those trucks on the interstate are retarding economic development.

Sure they are. Trains are much more efficient. Interstate trucking is viable only because the taxpayers are footing a big part of the cost.

Sure, dope. If only walmart would just choose to utilize the tracks that run up to their loading docks, then murica would finally be free.

Only a dumbass turd like you doesn't understand how or infrastructure can be designed around rail tansport rather than truck transport. Furthermore, I said for "interstate transport." Trucks have always been used for local deliveries. containers can be lifted right off a train and onto a semi. That technology is in place right now.