ofos
Vintage Cyburbian
- Messages
- 8,278
- Points
- 28
Why not high-speed freight? I'd rather see large volumes of freight moved quickly than a relatively small number of people who ought to work closer to home anyway.
-
Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!
NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread
- Thread starter imaplanner
- Start date
Why not high-speed freight? I'd rather see large volumes of freight moved quickly than a relatively small number of people who ought to work closer to home anyway.
- Messages
- 38,516
- Points
- 78
imaplanner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 6,672
- Points
- 28
^^^Did you two conspire together?
boiker
Desert Cyburbian
- Messages
- 3,888
- Points
- 30
Good point, but in secular society I believe we have duty under our social contract to provide these services in exchange for our tax money. The government is charged with promoting the welfare of its citizens, assistance programs further this charge.
WSU MUP Student
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 14,411
- Points
- 59
That neverending thread didn't even last as long as WHH's presidency! Sad.
The One
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 8,287
- Points
- 32
Ok.....
I just think that any deregulation should be surgical and very precise and fully understood and outlined prior to action being taken. It is not unreasonable to ask our elected officials to have a complete understanding of why the regulation existed in the first place, prior to removing it or even allowing it to be circumnavigated by policy decisions. If removing a regulation will only benefit a very few people, while at the same time harming the entire country or large groups of people, there should be political consequences to such actions.
If you take a small benign tumor out of someone's leg, they can still walk, as opposed to amputation. It would be like a surgeon discovering a benign tumor, then selling it as cancerous to the patient (who obviously can't verify the diagnosis independently) who then recommends the whole leg be taken off. This doesn't happen in medicine because of checks and balances related to malpractice and a little something called the hippocratic oath (aka it would just be wrong to take the whole leg off).
I just think that any deregulation should be surgical and very precise and fully understood and outlined prior to action being taken. It is not unreasonable to ask our elected officials to have a complete understanding of why the regulation existed in the first place, prior to removing it or even allowing it to be circumnavigated by policy decisions. If removing a regulation will only benefit a very few people, while at the same time harming the entire country or large groups of people, there should be political consequences to such actions.
If you take a small benign tumor out of someone's leg, they can still walk, as opposed to amputation. It would be like a surgeon discovering a benign tumor, then selling it as cancerous to the patient (who obviously can't verify the diagnosis independently) who then recommends the whole leg be taken off. This doesn't happen in medicine because of checks and balances related to malpractice and a little something called the hippocratic oath (aka it would just be wrong to take the whole leg off).
- Messages
- 38,516
- Points
- 78
[ot]Um, maybe something gets lost in translation with the passage of several years' time, but that's sort of the intended punchline to that joke thread.[/ot]
CJC
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 1,688
- Points
- 19
I'm just curious - what do you see as a "manageable" level of debt? Do you have a number or percentage in mind, or is it just a "I'll know it when I see it" type of thing?
The debt markets clearly see our current level of debt as manageable, otherwise we'd be paying higher interest rates or be having trouble selling our debt. Treasuries are still selling at near record levels with bottom-of-the-barrel interest rates. I tend to believe markets over cable news sound bites, but that's just me
We certainly have some structural deficit problems that need to be overcome, but the actual level of overall debt is really not that worrisome to me (certainly not any more than it was five years ago).
On the rail front, I definitely agree with you and see the need for HSR in certain areas - California, upgrades in the Northeast, maybe some radial lines around Chicago, perhaps Florida and Texas. A lot of these areas simply can't add much more highway/airport capacity.
Why don't those darn producers just build plants/warehouses closer to their customers or plan ahead and send before the last minute?
I would love to see some investments in higher capacity freight, electrification of freight lines, and automatic train control. I'd also love to see all freight rails (the rails, not the actual locomotives/cars) nationalized, then spun off as separate regulated utilities (one or several), so that we could have significantly more competition and even some new companies coming into the mix.
On your note on passenger HSR - remember that tourists are a form of freight too, and the most lucrative freight of all. And it just so happens that tourism is projected to be one of the largest growth industries in this country over the next 20-30 years.
Last edited:
ofos
Vintage Cyburbian
- Messages
- 8,278
- Points
- 28
CJC
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 1,688
- Points
- 19
I'm only supportive of HSR in a few places, where airports are at or near capacity and there are huge numbers of short hop flights. Replace many of the short hop flights with trains and you can then expand your offerings for other destinations. For example, Southwest alone has more than 100 daily flights between northern and southern California. You can be sure that if/when a northern California to Anaheim or Vegas line is ready, there will be some serious advertising for tourists.
As far as the TSA, I'd much prefer just eliminating that entire agency along with the entire Department of Homeland Security. That said, I'm not sure why the TSA would be involved in HSR, they're not currently involved in securing subways, bus terminals, train terminals, ferry terminals, freeways, the Acela sort of HSR system in the northeast, etc. The TSA bogeyman is always brought up, but I've never seen justification other than, "You know they will get involved at some point."
ofos
Vintage Cyburbian
- Messages
- 8,278
- Points
- 28
Southwest's business model was built on short hops to provide business travelers with an alternative to automobile travel. While they certainly profit from the tourist trade, they are still heavily invested in business commuter travel. That could be affected by HSR in some places but it will take a huge investment in HSR to be able to carry the same volumes and provide the same flexibility in departure and arrival options for short term travel. Airline ticket prices are kept artificially low by the ability to create start-up airlines with lower operational costs than more mature air carriers. HSR will, of necessity, lack substantial rail competition and will have to rely on government subsidy to compete economically with the airlines. It may all resolve eventually as non-renewable energy sources become even more scarce.
TSA? I may be wrong but I don't think that it will take more than one HSR "terrorist" attack to move them or another similar body into the train business.
imaplanner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 6,672
- Points
- 28
is 53 billion significant in the context of high speed rail serving America? My gut tells me that to have an effective high speed rail system in the US we would need something more like a trillion.
As far as debt. We need to work on reducing our debt but we can't stop spending on the future. We can do both- especially if we were willing to be honest about the military industrial complex
As far as debt. We need to work on reducing our debt but we can't stop spending on the future. We can do both- especially if we were willing to be honest about the military industrial complex
mgk920
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 4,200
- Points
- 26
I am not at all against maintaining and especially improving transport infrastructure - only that it must be well thought out and planned. Just blindly building things as 'make work' projects doesn't work - as those 'jobs' will all go 'poof!' the instant they are complete. Thus, I will *NEVER* look upon a major highway or other infrastructure improvement project as a way of 'creating' construction jobs, nor for how many people will be needed to build it. I look upon infrastructure improvements from an 'economic enabler' standpoint - they make much more wholesome and valuable long-term economic activity all the more possible.I'm just curious - what do you see as a "manageable" level of debt? Do you have a number or percentage in mind, or is it just a "I'll know it when I see it" type of thing?
The debt markets clearly see our current level of debt as manageable, otherwise we'd be paying higher interest rates or be having trouble selling our debt. Treasuries are still selling at near record levels with bottom-of-the-barrel interest rates. I tend to believe markets over cable news sound bites, but that's just me
We certainly have some structural deficit problems that need to be overcome, but the actual level of overall debt is really not that worrisome to me (certainly not any more than it was five years ago).
On the rail front, I definitely agree with you and see the need for HSR in certain areas - California, upgrades in the Northeast, maybe some radial lines around Chicago, perhaps Florida and Texas. A lot of these areas simply can't add much more highway/airport capacity.
*True* high-speed rail passenger projects work best in areas with lots of short-to-medium haul airline traffic, places like those mentioned above.
I would love to see normal-speed to 'enhanced'-speed rail passenger service restored to here in NE Wisconsin, too, as we here in the Oshkosh-Appleton-Green Bay WI area are just the right distance from downtown Chicago for such a service to be very popular. Right now, a visit to downtown Chicago requires budgeting at least eight hours (a full workday in total) for getting there and back and driving is about the only reasonable option - during which time NOTHING else can get done. For someone whose personal time might be worth several hundred dollars per hour, that is indeed a big hit. The closest rail access for us for Chicago are the two Amtrak stations in Milwaukee (the downtown intermodal station and Milwaukee-Airport).
We're actually on very close pages on that thought (GASP! :-c ). Right now, the local industrial economy here in central, northern and northeastern Wisconsin is feeling a real drag due to the very poor local carload rail freight service that is being provided by the only railroad in town (Canadian National) and I would love to find a way to covert the trackage to full 'open access', so that other, much more interested companies can come in and provide that service. Operate the rails in the same manner that public highways, civil aviation, seaports and so forth operate, where ANYONE can go anywhere provided that they are properly licensed and qualified, their equipment meets minimum technical standards and they are willing and able to pay the necessary fees and tolls.Why don't those darn producers just build plants/warehouses closer to their customers or plan ahead and send before the last minute?
I would love to see some investments in higher capacity freight, electrification of freight lines, and automatic train control. I'd also love to see all freight rails (the rails, not the actual locomotives/cars) nationalized, then spun off as separate regulated utilities (one or several), so that we could have significantly more competition and even some new companies coming into the mix.
Germany converted their Deutsche Bahn trackage to full (freight and passenger) 'open access' about ten years ago and since then, freight rail traffic volume in the country has exploded - greatly reducing the heavy truck/lorry traffic strain on their autobahns. The rest of the EU will be operating in the same manner by 2012.
More locally, here in eastern Wisconsin, the high-energy power transmission line network was converted to 'open access' (jointly owned by the local utilities) about ten years ago and the lines' new owner (American Transmission) has been aggressively making major upgrades to the system ever since. Before then, each utility owned and operated their own transmission network, with many paralleling lines, running between their power plants and local networks, as well as interconnects with other systems.
Mike
CJC
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 1,688
- Points
- 19
I only used Southwest as an example, because they have the most northern CA-southern CA flights, but you can add in more than 100 more daily split amongst United, Virgin America, Alaska, etc, etc.
There are numerous subsidies and other things (much more relaxed and lengthy bankruptcy proceedings, for example) that keep prices artificially low, but I wouldn't count start up carriers as one of those, unless you believe that the proper equilibrium is to not allow new entrants into a market. You're just talking about basic competition, not artificially lowering prices.
As far as HSR, I'm in agreement that it will require government fronting the capital costs (just as government does with airports), but I disagree strongly that HSR will not be able to turn an operating profit (only in key corridors of course - I don't support HSR any place where it cannot turn an operating profit - keep in mind that Acela already turns an operating profit, even at its ridiculously slow speeds). My ideal solution would be for government to build the tracks and stations, spin them off as private, regulated company or contract out the operations and maintenance of the tracks/stations, and then allow any private operators to use the tracks for a fee, much as our airline system is set up. So you could end up with several different operators offering trips on the same tracks, which is already done in several countries. The capital costs will take decades to pay off through user fees, but that's not that different from airports either.
They're not in the subway business yet, in spite of numerous terrorist attacks around the world targeting subways.
CJC
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 1,688
- Points
- 19
Couldn't agree more, though I understand the political need to often sell projects as creating construction jobs. Wish that that political need wasn't there, but that's not reality, unfortunately.
I bet we're closer than you think on many topics
As long as we're talking about open access networks (and I agree with everything that you mentioned above), it would be nice to move to something similar in the wireless/wired broadband arena. In most US cities we've got five-six duplicative wireless networks, yet each one has worse service than you'll get in most of Europe. In most European countries there are only one or two networks, but with 80-90 competing service providers (so prices are lower). Don't even get me started on wired broadband, where we've started talking about net neutrality, but in all the wrong ways...:-{
ofos
Vintage Cyburbian
- Messages
- 8,278
- Points
- 28
We'll probably just have acknowledge that we disagree on the whether the ROI makes sense for HSR here and I understand that you're only pushing it on a very selective basis.
True but we're talking about HSR lines, not subways, and those attacks haven't taken place here. There have also been many airline attacks (Lockerbie, for example) that didn't generate the response that the Trade Towers and Pentagon attacks did. You may have a point in that HSR attacks don't have as much potential to wreak havoc on commercial or government facilities.
True but we're talking about HSR lines, not subways, and those attacks haven't taken place here. There have also been many airline attacks (Lockerbie, for example) that didn't generate the response that the Trade Towers and Pentagon attacks did. You may have a point in that HSR attacks don't have as much potential to wreak havoc on commercial or government facilities.
Whose Yur Planner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 14,093
- Points
- 60
The context of the Render unto Caesar what is Caesar, render unto God what is God's verse was that Chrstians back in the day weren't wanting to pay taxes. Christ, not wating his followers (us) to wind up in jail told them to pay their taxes. The implication of the verse is two-fold. One, live is the civil society and don't use the faith as grounds to blow off civil society. Basically, balance the two. Pay both your tithe and your taxes. Secondly, God gave you your live, so He is owed that. The government paves your roads, keeps the peace. The government is owed your taxes because of that.
A better, more telling verse is "Respect those who have been placed in authority above you. They derive their authority from God to do His will." That verse drives conservative evangelicals crazy. Especially when the President/Congress is doing what they want them to do, particually when they are Democrats.
CJC
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 1,688
- Points
- 19
Fair enough.
All true, I guess that I just don't see what the motivation would be exactly. There are already much easier targets available, and if terrorists are simply looking for symbolic targets, the NYC or DC subway systems seem like much better train targets. You can't turn an HSR train into a missile like you can a plane, and any modern HSR system using ATC can be entirely stopped, reversed, or diverted remotely (unlike an American freight train, let's say), so you can't even ram it into the end of the line or another train very easily. About the only thing you can do is blow it up, something that you can do to anything.
NickSticks
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 163
- Points
- 7
Note to self: when holding elected office, don't post shirtless pictures of self on craigslist in an attempt to meet women.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2...r-shirtless-photo/?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2...r-shirtless-photo/?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig
Duke Of Dystopia
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,702
- Points
- 26
HOLLY CRAP! YOUR TALKING SENSE!
You couldn't help yourself and still voted for Walker, didn't you?
Bye bye high speed rail in WI...
mgk920
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 4,200
- Points
- 26
I did not support that Madison line because, IMHO, as it was laid out it made no logical sense - especially for its budgeted cost (over $800M 8-! ). Yes, I know why it was so unGodly expensive. Restoring a useful conventional service to the Fox Valley by extending existing Amtrak Hiawathas and adding more daily round trips will cost far, far less and be far more successful.HOLLY CRAP! YOUR TALKING SENSE!
You couldn't help yourself and still voted for Walker, didn't you?
Bye bye high speed rail in WI...
The very first thought that I had when that Madison line 'award' was announced over a year ago was "Man, I sure hope that this doesn't set back plans to restore service up here by several more decades....".
:-@
Mike
Duke Of Dystopia
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,702
- Points
- 26
He He He!
Yeah, First Walker killed the rail project. And the manufacturing jobs associated with producing and servicing the actual trains up and left the state. Good job Walker for your skills in creating jobs.
Now, The amazingly incompetent Walker has decided to try and shut down Wind Turbine Siting rules the state of WI has implemented. The new rules would make it impossible to put up new wind towers. Idiot!
The major wind tower producers. The real business people that actually have an education past high school that understand how this stuff works, have said:
Change the wind turbine rules, and the manufacturing jobs leave this state as fast as the rail manufacturing jobs.
Way to go Walker, you 12th grade moron!
TerraSapient
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,588
- Points
- 17
:l: :loveeyes: < The Civil Unions Bill has just passed the Hawaii State House of Representatives! Now back to the Senate for a quick amendment approval and on to Gov. Abercrombie's desk for a signature! Parties will be thrown tonight! Champagne will be poured! And... I even have a fabulous new floor length cobalt blue dress to wear for the occassion! Ahihihihihi
This is seriously awesome! Monkey wife and I will now enjoy nearly-full marriage equality and won't have to spend upwards of $10k for parental adoption rights. Life is good when equality prevails. :l: :loveeyes: <
The Civil Unions Bill has just passed the Hawaii State House of Representatives! Now back to the Senate for a quick amendment approval and on to Gov. Abercrombie's desk for a signature! Parties will be thrown tonight! Champagne will be poured! And... I even have a fabulous new floor length cobalt blue dress to wear for the occassion! Ahihihihihi This is seriously awesome! Monkey wife and I will now enjoy nearly-full marriage equality and won't have to spend upwards of $10k for parental adoption rights. Life is good when equality prevails. :l: :loveeyes: <
btrage
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 7,283
- Points
- 51
:l: :loveeyes: <
This is seriously awesome! Monkey wife and I will now enjoy nearly-full marriage equality and won't have to spend upwards of $10k for parental adoption rights. Life is good when equality prevails. :l: :loveeyes: <
That's awesome! Very happy for you.
Too bad my state went the opposite way in 2008.
ursus
Cyburbian, raised by Cyburbians
- Messages
- 6,494
- Points
- 50
That's awesome! Very happy for you.
Too bad my state went the opposite way in 2008.
Ill second that! All the best to you and Monkey Wife! Liberty equality fraternity and eventually - matrimony. ; but in all seriousness congratulations!
imaplanner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 6,672
- Points
- 28
:l: :loveeyes: <
This is seriously awesome! Monkey wife and I will now enjoy nearly-full marriage equality and won't have to spend upwards of $10k for parental adoption rights. Life is good when equality prevails. :l: :loveeyes: <
I'm all for allowing same sex marriage and civil unions, but human-monkey relationships is where I draw the line :-@
Whose Yur Planner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 14,093
- Points
- 60
GOP Pans Obama's Budget-there's a shocker. Gentlemen, start your talking points.:not::-{:wall:
:-{:wall:
wahday
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 3,959
- Points
- 23
:l: :loveeyes: <
This is seriously awesome! Monkey wife and I will now enjoy nearly-full marriage equality and won't have to spend upwards of $10k for parental adoption rights. Life is good when equality prevails. :l: :loveeyes: <
Equality rocks! Better get that dress dry-cleaned and ready! Next stop - actual marriage without the equivocating "civil union" business. Its just a matter of time at this point...
Here's to more states doing what's right!:b:
- Messages
- 18,113
- Points
- 66
:l: :loveeyes: <
This is seriously awesome! Monkey wife and I will now enjoy nearly-full marriage equality and won't have to spend upwards of $10k for parental adoption rights. Life is good when equality prevails. :l: :loveeyes: <
I am extremely happy for you. I think as each state starts making the right decision, we will have a much more reasonable debate on why this is a federal matter.
Celebrate with those you love. As you should have the right to do
Congrats!
imaplanner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 6,672
- Points
- 28
As if we needed any more evidence of the extremism of social conservatives these days. South Dakota looks at legalizing murder of abortion providers
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers#
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers#
- Messages
- 18,113
- Points
- 66
I agree with you to a point, but your example is not great. Democrats aren't pushing their ideas on you. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. The law doesn't REQUIRE you to do anything. The other side of that is that the Republicans would like to have the law tell a woman who is raped, whether or not she can keep a criminals baby or not. I will never have a kid myself, but I would never ask a women to do that. Legislating that is beyond wrong IMO. There is a HUGE difference between the two.
dandy_warhol
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 13,803
- Points
- 60
Disgusting.
illinoisplanner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 5,334
- Points
- 25
Regarding the first argument, the Democrats are pushing their beliefs, however, when they want to use my taxpayer dollars to help pay for someone else's abortion. I don't agree with abortion, but yet I help finance them? That ain't right.
As far as the rape issue, not every Republican agrees that a woman who is raped should have to keep that baby. I know I don't.
TexanOkie
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,903
- Points
- 23
[OT]
Biased.
The language in the SD HB 1171 only expands South Dakota's definition of "justified homicide" if the homicide is committed by person resisting an attempt to be murdered or have their unborn child/fetus harmed to the point where it will be murdered or terminated, or if its done by someone else in defense of said person, and then only if there is "reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony" against such person.
In other words, the person doing the killing has to be resisting or defending someone resisting, and in trial any argument for justified homicide would have to conclusively prove that that there is/was reason to believe a felony (murder, etc.) was going to be committed against resisting person by the person who was killed. That is difficult to prove.
In other words, it is not a free license to kill abortion providers, as the Mother Jones article you linked to claims. I can see how they would jump to that claim, given that most of the reporting I've read about it is second-hand reporting, but they obviously haven't read the language of the bill itself.
Language is here: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/Bill.aspx?File=HB1171HJU.htm[/OT]
Biased.
The language in the SD HB 1171 only expands South Dakota's definition of "justified homicide" if the homicide is committed by person resisting an attempt to be murdered or have their unborn child/fetus harmed to the point where it will be murdered or terminated, or if its done by someone else in defense of said person, and then only if there is "reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony" against such person.
In other words, the person doing the killing has to be resisting or defending someone resisting, and in trial any argument for justified homicide would have to conclusively prove that that there is/was reason to believe a felony (murder, etc.) was going to be committed against resisting person by the person who was killed. That is difficult to prove.
In other words, it is not a free license to kill abortion providers, as the Mother Jones article you linked to claims. I can see how they would jump to that claim, given that most of the reporting I've read about it is second-hand reporting, but they obviously haven't read the language of the bill itself.
Language is here: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/Bill.aspx?File=HB1171HJU.htm[/OT]
imaplanner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 6,672
- Points
- 28
I dunno Tex Ok. The text is this:
It's the "or" that seems to indicate the attempt to commission of a felony need not occur.
- Messages
- 18,113
- Points
- 66
Fair enough. I agree all of it shouldn't be funded by the government, but the government funds all kinds of things I don't think it should fund. Does that mean they shouldn't do it? I think not. If it is for the health of the woman, and she can't afford it, it should be covered. It doesn't require you to DO anything you don't want to anymore than paying for the Iraq war or a bloated defense budget.
I know some don't agree... but some do. To me those that believe that, should be chastised and the R party leadership should be clear to state that it isn't a principle they believe in. This has not happened to my knowledge.
TexanOkie
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,903
- Points
- 23
I read it as a non-bulleted bulleted list (which is how it sounds if you read it aloud), and it is my understanding that was the author's intent. Perhaps the wording/grammar is not perfect, and it should be re-worded as such:
It's the second part of the amendment, the part for defenders (22-16-35), that talks about reason to believe a felony will be committed, etc.
imaplanner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 6,672
- Points
- 28
I don't know what the intent was- but think about what a good defense attorney would do if this law passed?
What I find interesting, is that the way I read the law, someone could legally kill an abortion provider, but then the doctor's friend could legally kill the possible killer of the abortion provider. Then the possible abortion provider's killer's friend could legally kill the friend of the abortion provider who killed the abortion provider's friend. A South Dakota standoff!
TexanOkie
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,903
- Points
- 23
I like the pop-cultural ring to that. It could become as famous as "Russian Roulette".
Nero
Member
- Messages
- 248
- Points
- 10
Then you should agree to help pay for the unwanted child's needs. There's a lot of things my tax $$ go for that I wish they didn't.... but that's part of living in America. If you don't want an abortion... don't get one. there is a lot of people that I wish abortion was retroactive.
Whose Yur Planner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 14,093
- Points
- 60
I qould echo some of these comments. Conservatives want state's rights as long as the state follows their ideology. However, when they don"t, conservatives want the federal government to step in. Example when Cali enacted global warming standards. That was because it impacted the pocketbook of their main supporters. Conservatives want national standards when it benefits their backers. When it doesn't, they scream state's rights.
:not:
- Messages
- 18,113
- Points
- 66
I find this to be counter-productive...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49555.html
So you want to create jobs, by putting people out of jobs? I am just confused as to why some in our government feel that those who work in government aren't as important as those who work in the private sector?
I have issues when the connections between the private and public sector are ignored. If you cut public employee positions, you have a higher unemployment rate. These people then look for private work. Private work is funded by public governments, who now do not have the budget to hire the work out. So governments are understaffed, and privates don't have work.
Is a private job worth more than a public job? If you government never created a job, please look at the defense budget. Look at how millions of private contractors are paid. The government, whether you like it or not, is an economic engine.
I just hate the idea of people like my representative Mr. Speaker Boehner who are accepting of screwing government employees at all costs to "create more jobs"... it seems disingenuous.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49555.html
So you want to create jobs, by putting people out of jobs? I am just confused as to why some in our government feel that those who work in government aren't as important as those who work in the private sector?
I have issues when the connections between the private and public sector are ignored. If you cut public employee positions, you have a higher unemployment rate. These people then look for private work. Private work is funded by public governments, who now do not have the budget to hire the work out. So governments are understaffed, and privates don't have work.
Is a private job worth more than a public job? If you government never created a job, please look at the defense budget. Look at how millions of private contractors are paid. The government, whether you like it or not, is an economic engine.
I just hate the idea of people like my representative Mr. Speaker Boehner who are accepting of screwing government employees at all costs to "create more jobs"... it seems disingenuous.
Planit
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 21,082
- Points
- 68
Budget reduction 101:
Defense budget seems to be a good place to save some funds.
All told, it amounts to $702.8 billion, broken down as follows: $553 billion for the baseline discretionary Defense Department budget, $5 billion for a handful of mandatory programs, $117.8 billion for the costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and—a category usually omitted in these sorts of analyses but clearly laid out in the tables of the White House budget office—$27 billion for "defense-related" programs in other federal departments, nearly half of it for nuclear-weapons labs, reactors, and warhead maintenance in the Department of Energy.
The money to fight the wars is probably untouchable. First, as a result of the troop pullout from Iraq, it's a lot less money than the $160 billion funded last year. Second, as was the case last year, Gates is straightforward in itemizing these war-fighting costs ($80 billion for the troops and supplies, $10 billion for equipment to counter roadside bombs, $12 billion to repair and replace equipment, etc.). This is a refreshing contrast to his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, who offered no elaboration and stuffed several non-war-related programs into the account to make the baseline budget seem smaller.
$533 billion of discretionary funds!?!?!!
For instance, this budget includes $24.6 billion for 11 new ships, including $4 billion for two new Virginia-class submarines and $1 billion for the down payment on a new aircraft carrier.
Let's just build 8 ships instead and save $11.2 billion; how about 1 new sub and save $2 billion!
The budget also includes $9.4 billion to buy 32 F-35 stealth fighter planes. The F-35 has run into so many technical problems and delays that Gates is also requesting $3.5 billion to build more of the planes that the F-35 was supposed to replace, including 28 F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter-attack jets and 12 EA-18G radar planes. Gates is also asking for $2 billion to upgrade the radar on older F-15 planes.
Someone should ask whether it might be a better idea to scale back, or scuttle, the F-35s and to expand the production lines for the modified F-15s and F/A-18s instead. We already have (or have funded) 189 F-22 stealth fighters and 58 F-35s, enough to counter exotic threats from as-yet-nonexistent advanced air threats posed by potential enemies. The older designs, few of which have ever been shot down even though they're not "stealthy," are perfectly adequate for all other scenarios.
Scrap the F-35 and save $9.4 billion and keep / modify the planes in service. With these few items, I just saved $22.6 billion!
Source article: http://www.slate.com/id/2285080/
Now I know thats a drop in the bucket but we need to take an honest look at what we really need. In local government we are cutting to the bone. Our department hasn't received one new car in 3 years now just to save funds. And as hink points out, it's pretzel logic to cut govt. jobs to 'create' jobs.
Defense budget seems to be a good place to save some funds.
All told, it amounts to $702.8 billion, broken down as follows: $553 billion for the baseline discretionary Defense Department budget, $5 billion for a handful of mandatory programs, $117.8 billion for the costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and—a category usually omitted in these sorts of analyses but clearly laid out in the tables of the White House budget office—$27 billion for "defense-related" programs in other federal departments, nearly half of it for nuclear-weapons labs, reactors, and warhead maintenance in the Department of Energy.
The money to fight the wars is probably untouchable. First, as a result of the troop pullout from Iraq, it's a lot less money than the $160 billion funded last year. Second, as was the case last year, Gates is straightforward in itemizing these war-fighting costs ($80 billion for the troops and supplies, $10 billion for equipment to counter roadside bombs, $12 billion to repair and replace equipment, etc.). This is a refreshing contrast to his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, who offered no elaboration and stuffed several non-war-related programs into the account to make the baseline budget seem smaller.
$533 billion of discretionary funds!?!?!!
For instance, this budget includes $24.6 billion for 11 new ships, including $4 billion for two new Virginia-class submarines and $1 billion for the down payment on a new aircraft carrier.
Let's just build 8 ships instead and save $11.2 billion; how about 1 new sub and save $2 billion!
The budget also includes $9.4 billion to buy 32 F-35 stealth fighter planes. The F-35 has run into so many technical problems and delays that Gates is also requesting $3.5 billion to build more of the planes that the F-35 was supposed to replace, including 28 F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter-attack jets and 12 EA-18G radar planes. Gates is also asking for $2 billion to upgrade the radar on older F-15 planes.
Someone should ask whether it might be a better idea to scale back, or scuttle, the F-35s and to expand the production lines for the modified F-15s and F/A-18s instead. We already have (or have funded) 189 F-22 stealth fighters and 58 F-35s, enough to counter exotic threats from as-yet-nonexistent advanced air threats posed by potential enemies. The older designs, few of which have ever been shot down even though they're not "stealthy," are perfectly adequate for all other scenarios.
Scrap the F-35 and save $9.4 billion and keep / modify the planes in service. With these few items, I just saved $22.6 billion!
Source article: http://www.slate.com/id/2285080/
Now I know thats a drop in the bucket but we need to take an honest look at what we really need. In local government we are cutting to the bone. Our department hasn't received one new car in 3 years now just to save funds. And as hink points out, it's pretzel logic to cut govt. jobs to 'create' jobs.
TexanOkie
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,903
- Points
- 23
While I'm sure there are a lot of places the Dept. of Defense can cut back, scrapping the F-35, especially after the F-22 was cut back significantly (with the rationale that the F-35 could do a lot of the F-22's roles), is a bad idea. In aerospace warfare - greater than all other areas, perhaps - it is vitally important to stay ahead of the curve, technologically.
stroskey
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 1,212
- Points
- 17
Isn't it clear most future wars will be fought by disrupting utility or communications services, etc? What good does 11 warships do when your enemy is living in an apartment in NYC and planning to blow up a building? How do you fight an ideology with guns?
The One
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 8,287
- Points
- 32
Ouch!
I just got some bad news from our local USDA NRCS RC&D (I'm a Board Member) coordinator that Obama has cut the entire $51 million from the USDA, eliminating the program nationwide. A program with a economic development slant and proven to generate nearly $7 for every dollar spent in the program. Not a big deal for urbanites, but a very big deal for rural areas. :-{
I just got some bad news from our local USDA NRCS RC&D (I'm a Board Member) coordinator that Obama has cut the entire $51 million from the USDA, eliminating the program nationwide. A program with a economic development slant and proven to generate nearly $7 for every dollar spent in the program. Not a big deal for urbanites, but a very big deal for rural areas. :-{
TexanOkie
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,903
- Points
- 23
No defense analyst will ever tell you that the possibility/probability of more conventional warfare will go away and that, if/when it occurs again, will dwarf any fights we may have against an ideology.
Duke Of Dystopia
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,702
- Points
- 26
The F-22 was a complete boondagle. It can't communicate with most of the rest of the equipment of the armed forces. Its a fancy bi-plane. Its another system that should have been scrapped.
The F-35 should hang around in development if we ever need to build it. No extra engine.
The real future in aviation are drones. Drones can do everything a human occupied plane can do, only better. They can jam, spy, engage and attack at all atmospheric levels, and they can do it with more precision.
No carrier currently carries its full compliment of aircraft because the Navy can't afford the planes. Drones, especially attack drones can be stealthy attack birds since they can fly true nap of the earth with dangerous hardware. They are dirt cheap compared to a human occupied plane.
We currently own more than 4,000 predator drones. No air defenses could withstand a massed attack we can launch. Feel the POWER! No friendly deaths!
Human occupied planes should be upgraded and researched but drones should be taking the lead for future needs.
Rural areas are getting exactly what they want.
Rural areas get more graft from the public dole in the form of Ag subsidies than any other group in society. They are ALL on welfare in the sticks. Then go on to elect budgetary idiots that want to harm their sweet deal.
Here in WI, the rural areas elect Walker. Those same rural areas are scared senseless that Walker will severely cut state matching funds. They also voted in his cadre of support. The funny thing is:
THEY VOTED TO DO THIS TO THEMSELVES!
imaplanner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 6,672
- Points
- 28
Never happen. The MIC is too powerful. I read somewhere that one of the founders (MAdison?) was concerned about just such a thing (given British imperialism) and wanted to prohibit a permanent military as part of the second amendment, but that the motion failed by only a few votes.
We spend more than all other countries combined on our military. Would be nice to spend money on Americans and American infrastructure, health and education instead of imperialism.