In this scenario I have no preference either way and with both I'd be fine. I have no problems with PPP
Skip the details and get to the point. What is your point, you are clearly trying to make one. Either make your point or I'm done with you. We've been going over back and forth all day and I just want to hear your point.
What is it?
So you wouldn't want the government to save the extra $10k?
And what do you mean by PPP?
Public Private Partnerships
In Dallas one of the commuter rail lines that has been proposed has had an alternative funding solution presented as a PPP because the transit agency doesn't have the funds via taxes alone to construct it. If that ever moves forward I would presume that at least some people would have some percentage of the cost of their employment borne by the tax payers and some by whatever private entity they go with. I don't even know if there is a full proposal. However DART (the transit authority for most of Dallas County) simply doesn't have the money to move forward without some sort of external money source such as a grant from the federal government or as part of a PPP.
If there are no private sources of money - the government foots the entire bill
If the government can't afford it alone - go with the private source along with the the government
If neither can afford it and it is a critical project then it would probably go on the national debt
If the private company can afford it and if the government can then I really have no preference, if I were a Representative I would vote yes on both in the hope that at least one gets passed
Now the point must exist.
I see usually when I see PPP I think Purchasing Power Parity.
But why would you have no preference between both options if the latter saves tax payer money to be spent on something else? Do you just not care if government money is wasted when it doesn't have to be? This is kind of a big sticking point before I move on.
I am with you on this debate, Wonkish. But I would add this concise fact that is so often overlooked among our friends on the left: In order for the government to give anybody anything, the government must take something from somebody (if they simply "print money" to "pay," they are still taking something from somebodies: lost purchasing power via inflation). In other words, all government spending is EVENTUALLY paid for by taxation on market activities and/or inflation upon society at large.
