i drink it up!
If people didn't like the second bathroom enough to put up with the commute then they wouldn't. Otherwise they do. I see what you're saying but it's open market behaviour that is driving it now. Choice is still there. That's not to say bullet trains wouldn't be a great development. I think Obama had something there (along with wifi). Not only for commuting but also for increase bandwidth for trading with America and tourism.
The idea of well there's too many people using it so lets get some people off of using it never seems... right to me. When it comes to infrastructure I'm more for lets fucking build more infrastructure so the country can grow and evolve with only reasonable limitation on it.
Last edited by Drewbacca; 22 Feb 2011 at 02:07 PM.
Originally Posted by rezo
can't wake up
It's not an "open market" if the government was out there subsidizing the development of the system. Obama's plan is simply a recognition of the imbalance which has been present in government funding the past 60 years or so.
If anything, density/gentrification is currently in vogue as people move back to the city while large McMansions and condo developments in the exurbs are sitting vacant. Look at Arizona or the Inland Empire.
Last edited by Diff-chan; 22 Feb 2011 at 02:10 PM.
The Professor doth rubbeth off upon thee.
Zoobesucherin
Taking money from PBS is about as shitty as it gets.
Wild Arms Junky.
I find it more than distasteful. I feel it's long term bad economics to allow cheap ass gas to flourish in America much more than I worry about urban sprawl.
http://www.fvza.org/index.html
they don't pay for anything anyway.
Large lower middle class conservatives are often subsidized by the rest of the country.
i drink it up!
That's what the market price is set as? If it's flourishing in America that's what it's supposed to be at. Gas is actually cheap to produce - record and soaring profits of big oil shows you that. Increasing tax or price only further goes to indenture people to these big companies. What you need to do is increase infrastructure. As your nation grows so to does its needs. You have position in the world now to make good on these needed increases. If you don't things will just end up getting clogged even more and stifle your growth, giving leg-up to competitive nations who provide these things.
To do otherwise is to tell the poor they can't have nice things or compete with the wealthy. Where are your liberal ideals then?
This is a decision people get to make for themselves. I don't advocate government sponsoring either behaviour. Either way local populations (in both Canada and US) are starting to see a reduction in birth rate (as you said). The problem is solved through education and so forth. But the point still stands - if you have a nation hungry to grow you need to support its needs. That's the entire point of governance in the first place. You DO have the resources to accommodate the needs of people. The thing about urban sprawl is that eventually it becomes cost prohibitive. The suburbs of New York and other large communities become as-expensive to live in as in the city. So the decision then becomes that of convenience and lifestyle. Razor lives in New York because he has decided an increase in rent is fine. A small price to pay for the convenience it offers him for his lifestyle (instead of commuting from NJ or whatever he was doing).
Like I said, I don't think urban sprawl is a big enough issue to push an agenda on (like an increase in tax or what have you).
Last edited by Drewbacca; 23 Feb 2011 at 12:03 PM.
can't wake up
People on the left have been pushing for more infrastructure investment for years. The USA's infrastructure is largely identical to what was built from about 1840 through 1970. We have been coasting for decades. Every year some engineering organization gives the US a failing grade for its crumbling infrastructure. That one bridge in Minnesota collapsed but there are tens of thousands of bridges in similarly dire condition which are not being replaced.
Thing is, it costs money and time. Old conservatards (who lived large off the sparkling clean system built after WW2) and hillbillies don't want to pay for it. So we don't get it.
No one on either side of the aisle is prioritizing that high enough. It's a significantly larger problem than health insurance for example, but we had to waste two years getting that terrible bill shoved down our throats instead of any fixes to future-proof our infrastructure.
i drink it up!
There are sexier issues to tackle that are of interest to people. Roads are expected, so it becomes a mundane and uninteresting platform. There's no denying the overwhelming voice of the Republicans (vocal minority, perhaps) are calling for a tightening of the purse strings right now. But the Democrats can't absolve themselves of all the blame as they held control of the office and congress for years without passing agenda. That shows disorganized leadership. Say what you will about Bush but people fell in line behind him (or Cheney, most likely).
There is no civility when it comes to heavy lifting in politics. No use comes of that. Band together with your party and get shit done.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks