(July 20, 2013 at 3:34 pm)Rhythm Wrote: That's true. But again we say "under a model which excludes deferment you can't defer".
That doesn't address my point. I'm saying that excluding deferment is a disadvantage of the system
(July 20, 2013 at 3:34 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Personally, I couldn't even mount an argument for an absolute and all encompassing position even if I tried real hard.
C'mon. Gimme something to shoot at.
(July 20, 2013 at 3:34 pm)Rhythm Wrote: What I might set and what others might set as appropriate uses of such a tool (and what process we might use) is a wide open field I'd say.
So it is. But we have to start somewhere.
(July 20, 2013 at 3:34 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Can they? Why?
For a variety of reasons - like none of the proposals guaranteeing results or all off them being unpopular moves or the funds being reserved - though not necessarily used - for a project that may never get off the drawing board.
(July 20, 2013 at 3:34 pm)Rhythm Wrote: We already leverage a way to deal with this sort of situation. Spend it or lose it.
Under the current scenario, government does have the option of simply saving it.
(July 20, 2013 at 3:34 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Then we're all paying for that loss in productivity. That has to be understood and accepted. For whatever reason we've decided that were willing to absorb that loss. This may not always be an option, of course.
Its debatable whether we all did agree to it. Especially since a lot of private companies are constantly lobbying for developing those lands.
(July 20, 2013 at 3:34 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Yep. If they had a good proposal I can't see why not.
A simple reason being one of the lesser known responsibilities of the government - to make sure that atleast some resources are left for the future generations to use.