I made that term up I guess. Here is a website that lists some companies, industries and employment in Northern Kentucky.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy
Printable View
I made that term up I guess. Here is a website that lists some companies, industries and employment in Northern Kentucky.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbiemcgee
Ever heard of the crowding out effect?
Is that 12 Trillion dollars wealth? Is it wealth that was created by the government? Where does the government get the 12 Trillion dollars? Is it possible that left to market devices the 12 Trillion dollars would still exist but in a different and more beneficial allocation?
I don't think we would have 12 Trillion dollars less of housing in this country without the government just because the government backs 12 Trillion dollars of mortgage paper. Some of that obviously would exist anyway. It is lunacy to think that the government built all the houses because they bought up a bunch of mortgage paper.
Maybe some of that money would have gone into capital investments and research and development. Maybe the 12 Trillion would be worth a lot more by now. It is also striking how close that figure is to our national debt.
Government spending crowds out private spending. For one thing, the government has to take the property away from people in the first place, taking away their ability to spend it. For another they use scarce resources, including human resources like Doctors and Scientists. That drives up the cost of those resources to the private sector.
The British have the National Health Service. It is government run health care. Now if the NHS didn't exist, do you think that the British wouldn't have any health care? That is silly.
We didn't used to have government run schools in this country. The Government has a monopoly in education, with over 90% of the K-12 population. If we didn't have the government, would schools not exist but for less than 10% of the population? That is silly.
So the government subsidizes the mortgage industry. That doesn't mean we wouldn't have a mortgage industry, and it doesn't mean that you can make a literal dollar for dollar reduction to the mortgage industry we have now. That is silly.
I am wondering what the point was of comparing the demographics between Cincinnati and Seattle? You didn't draw any relevant conclusions, you just implied that a) black people aren't progressive enough to support a streetcar b) if they did ride the train they would bring bed bugs and make them dirty c) the street car won't work in Cincinnati due to it's proximity to blacks. I don't think that's what you meant to imply, but either way your argument about white flight seems out of place in the context of this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipe
The progressives in places like Portland and Seattle likely built the streetcars for environmental purposes foremost, amid all the other practical reasons to do it. The environmentalism construct rules progressive thought these days, most people know that.
This is the point that many don't get in Cincinnati. Portland and Seattle are located in the immensely beautiful Pacific Northwest, which is constantly being protected by those pesky "progressives". Nothing compares with it in the US. Mountainous visages, incredible waterways, lush green forest all around, very moderate climate (it's never been below 0 in Seattle and never 100 degrees). It offers an incredibly fulfilling lifestyle before the first word about cities are mentioned. Comparing the Midwest with it is no contest. It's hard to find a local here in Seattle because they're all Big 10 engineers and computer programmers. There is a siphon sucking all the talent into this area (and others, sure) and there has been for 40 years.
I think some don't acknowledge this advantage in Cincinnati because they don't really know or because it's too harsh a reality. Cincinnati will never have the Cascades and Mt. Rainer situated among dozens of remote forested islands in an Ocean inlet where the seafood is always delicious.
Sorry.
But...the streetcar is just one thing Cincinnati can do to appeal to the many 1000's of young people nationally who think environmentally, who want to live in a dense area with lot's of people and a good social life (yes this does exist!), but don't want to live 2000 miles from home. And circumstantially, Cincinnati is one of, if not the, nicest cities in the Midwest. It's not hard to love. But, if you go to its core and there is nothing exciting to do, why would you want to move there? Why wouldn't you want to move somewhere else?
It is very important that OTR gets revitalized. The streetcar is gentrification 101. You delineate the area that needs protection, investment, and direction, then you go about watching it grow with private investment. It's not a hard concept, there is proof it can work, OTR needs to lose it's reputation of crime and poverty, the city needs another/more local flavor, it just makes sense. If it's a completely safe, viable neighborhood in 10-15 years (or sooner), what a success it would be for the city and it's people.
As for the government is too big argument, cut taxes, etc, etc. The alternative's to government regulation are what happened in the past to force regulation. If you remove the rules, the same thing will happen that needed prevention. You probably don't like Nader, but do you think automobile safety would be where it is without his efforts to regulate? The list of private corporate scandal and oversight is so hilariously long and atrocious I really can't see how anyone could miss it. You can thank government regulation for so many of the simple quality of life issues you don't have to worry about. To be outright against something like government regulation or intervention tells me you grew up watching too many cowboy flicks and must find yourself wishing you were born long ago. If you wanted to go line by line through a lot of the bureaucratic waste, I'd gladly do that too, but this streetcar/OTR vision has lots of merit and is really a decisive piece of the future of downtown.
Will it work even though it's not in a "progressive" city? I think it will at least serve it's purpose of stemming the tide of downward do-nothing-ness. It will definitely bring lots of investment and change to OTR. It already has and people have said it wouldn't. OTR has had "change" boiling under the surface for decades, now there is a further defined area to make something happen. If the connection between Clifton and downtown is a success with getting young people downtown, I think you'll see a lot more young professionals who are attracted to city life / living staying in Cincinnati. UC and downtown have so much to offer each other. XU getting in on this would be perfect as well. (I've been wanting to see a downtown campus as XU's next expansion, btw.)
The last piece that interests me (off topic) is the success of the Reds. Sounds funny, but if the Reds have a contender over the next 5-10 years, we'll finally see the lift in downtown that was promised in 1995 or whenever. Long overdue, for sure. But the Banks living arrangements are in high demand now, so that is a good sign. I like to think of it as Jay Bruce and Joey Votto carrying the city on their backs, literally. I don't like that fact, and I hate Paul Brown Stadium outright, but it's what we're stuck with when people in government have to bow to private interests, right?
It is also silly to ignore the incredible amount of equalization the government has provided where, privately that was never going to happen. Your "repeal the 14th amendment" argument was odious at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipe
If there was only private ownership of housing, there would be millions and millions of homeless people. Especially after the economy tanks due to deregulation in this libertarian utopia, or was that the Great Depression? Either way, yes, all things will take care of themselves when greedy rich people are left unchecked. Yes, sounds about right. At least with the government things are rightfully kept in check, in concept if nothing else. Geeze, I feel like I'm arguing HS civics here. And the tea partyers wonder why they're accused of being radical? Their vision is a total departure from today's world. It's near anarchy, which is only fun if you're drunk.
Ugh.Quote:
Originally Posted by pizza delivery
Most companies don't own their office space. They rent. Why do they rent? One reason is that the government decided not to heavily subsidize companies to own their own place, unlike home ownership. Yet, companies find a place to do business by renting.
I think one of the better developments in DC is that both conservatives and liberals recognize that the government should not subsidize home ownership (it just took the almost meltdown of the world economy). Look for the mortgage deduction to end. Look for the government to get out of fannie and freddie. Barney Frank is even behind this.
I don't own a home, pizza. Yet, I'm not homeless. Crazy!!!
Homeless companies? I don't think I mentioned homeless companies. Anyway...The Great Depression brought on hundreds of thousands of homeless, with a much greater population now I think the homeless number would likely increase, no?
I'm sorry, I think I deleted that (I love to edit my posts...).Quote:
Originally Posted by pizza delivery
I believe that the government should provide a safety net. Section 8 housing is far from perfect. But it's a safety net to keep people off the streets.
But why should the government give cash to middle and upper class Americans to purchase homes.
I think that's why liberals are even calling for an end to subsidization. Why should the government funnel money into the hands of already relatively wealthy Americans.
Why is it very important that OTR gets revitalized? You are just going to displace the criminal element elsewhere in the city. You aren't eliminating anything. What makes OTR more important to revitalize than any other part of the city, at the expense of other parts of the city. Let's say you succeed in moving the criminal element out of OTR and into the West End. Good for OTR I guess, but bad for the West End.Quote:
Originally Posted by pizza delivery
People in Cincinnati love OTR for some reason, but if it was so great why did it become such a craphole? We like to talk about how revitalizing OTR is the key to 'bringing back' downtown and luring and keeping young professionals. Why is this yet to be realized vision of some utopian OTR with rehabbed buildings and no crime the key to luring young professionals to Cincinnati?
I would rather see them continue to develop the area between the river and 7th street before worrying about OTR.
If you want to respond to another thread by all means go ahead. This thread might not the right place though.Quote:
Originally Posted by pizza delivery
To correct you though, I didn't advocate repealing the 14th amendment...
I don't think that is odius, hateful or repugnant myself. I don't think the 14th amendment should be allowed for Chinese or Turkish birth tourists. I guess that goes for odius in todays climate of debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipe
Wow. That website is awesome. I think two of those companies are inside of 275, and the second largest (Comair) is heading for the toilet, quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipe
I hear from a lot of people how awesome Northern Kentucky is. I work in Northern Kentucky. It's a shithole. Covington is a shithole. Newport is a shithole. Newport on the Levee is an okay entertainment complex. That's it.
I run a fair amount through the streets of Covington. It's not at all odd to have to dodge poop on the sidewalk, and probably only about half of it is animal poop. The city of Covington doesn't have the money to make contractually obligated maintenance and repairs to the garage of the building I work in. It's a dirty, smelly, run down city.
Whenever people point to the "success" of Northern Kentucky as evidence of Cincinnati's failures, I am instantly sure they have no idea what they are talking about.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you attempt to block the CityLink development - a privately funded venture? I think you even used zoning laws (read: government regulations) to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipe
So, you're all for less government regulation, except when you need some help in your back yard.
Your community leader even celebrated recently that the constant challenges have disrupted this private venture:
http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/ci...12/story5.htmlQuote:
“I’m encouraged,” said West End Community Council member Dave Petersen of Dansby’s resignation. “The more disorganized they are, the less likely it’s ever going to happen.”
Aren't we talking about private ownership of housing? We aren't talking about the mortgage market for government owned housing. That doesn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by pizza delivery
HUD statistics say that 5,000,000 people live in assisted housing, 77% of which are female headed households. In a country of 307,000,000 people, that is 1.63%. That leaves the following 98.37% as residents of privately owned housing. It is more than that though, because HUD uses Section 8 vouchers to place people in privately owned housing. I would guess that less than 1% of people actually live in housing that is not privately owned.
None of which has much to do with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or the government subsidizing the private mortgage/housing industry. I just wanted to show you that private ownership of housing is already the rule across the land and always has been. That doesn’t' mean the people that live in the housing own the housing, just that the government doesn't own the housing. We do leave the ownership of housing to the private sector already, as has been the case.
If you want to debate whether the federal government should be "assisting" the housing of 5 million people we can have that debate, it just wasn't the debate that we were having. I personally would like to see housing decisions done on a local level, with State, County and Local government involvement instead of Federal mandates and waste. I would get rid of the Dept of Housing and Urban Development, and I would take care of local matters like housing on a local level. That doesn't mean that we would do away with assisted housing, it just means the Federal Government wouldn't be involved.
Again though that wasn't what we are talking about. The government's role in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae didn't keep millions upon millions of people from being homeless. That is absurd. The government subsidizes homeownership. This actually drives up the cost of homes by putting more eligible buyers on the market. Without government subsidies home prices would fall. That is a good thing if you are looking for a home, and a bad thing if you are looking to sell one. Many people buy bigger homes because of the subsidy. That can lead to a bad allocation of resources in the economy. Less is spent on capital assets that produce, and more is spent on bigger homes. It also has environmental consequences. Without the government subsidy less people would be eligible to buy home. Those people would have to rent. They would not be homeless.
The argument that we need to subsidize the mortgage industry to prevent homelessness is grandiose, ignorant and has no sound basis.
If the government got out of subsidizing the mortgage business it wouldn't make it a "libertarian utopia". I wouldn't even consider it deregulation. I also don't think the Great Depression was caused by the lack of government subsidy to the mortgage market. Fill me in on that one. I also don't see your point about "greedy rich people". I bet greedy rich people have made a pretty penny from the government subsidies to the mortgage market.Quote:
Especially after the economy tanks due to deregulation in this libertarian utopia, or was that the Great Depression? Either way, yes, all things will take care of themselves when greedy rich people are left unchecked. Yes, sounds about right.
I think you quite clearly stated my main problem with liberals. You are happy that things are kept in check "in concept if nothing else". The actual results don't matter if the concept is right. It is the thought that counts. Who cares about tradeoffs, pros and cons, benefits and consequences? You know you are right and have the moral high ground, because you are taking a stand for the homeless against the greedy rich people. It doesn't matter whether your policies hurt or help the poor, what matters to you is that your heart is in the right place. That is the view of most of the condescending liberals that I know. So every argument, even one about subsidizing mortgages for overpriced condos in Florida or expensive homes in Las Vegas becomes an argument about the cruel rich person against the homeless guy. That is quite a worldview.Quote:
At least with the government things are rightfully kept in check, in concept if nothing else.
Did they teach you about the government subsidizing the mortgage industry in High School Civics? Me neither. We just had a meltdown in the mortgage markets. Is looking at the way the government subsidizes mortgages radical?Quote:
Geeze, I feel like I'm arguing HS civics here. And the tea partyers wonder why they're accused of being radical? Their vision is a total departure from today's world. It's near anarchy, which is only fun if you're drunk.
Here is a radical, Paul Krugman of the New York Times:
"You can make a good case that America already has too many homeowners" = Liberal Economist Paul Krugman and the New York Times want millions of poor people to be homeless!Quote:
But here’s a question rarely asked, at least in Washington: Why should ever-increasing homeownership be a policy goal? How many people should own homes, anyway?
Listening to politicians, you’d think that every family should own its home — in fact, that you’re not a real American unless you’re a homeowner.
...
Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economist who is one of Barack Obama’s top advisers, warned against a crackdown on subprime lending. “For be it ever so humble,” he wrote, “there really is no place like home, even if it does come with a balloon payment mortgage.”
And the belief that you’re nothing if you don’t own a home is reflected in U.S. policy. Because the I.R.S. lets you deduct mortgage interest from your taxable income but doesn’t let you deduct rent, the federal tax system provides an enormous subsidy to owner-occupied housing. On top of that, government-sponsored enterprises — Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks — provide cheap financing for home buyers; investors who want to provide rental housing are on their own.
In effect, U.S. policy is based on the premise that everyone should be a homeowner. But here’s the thing: There are some real disadvantages to homeownership.
First of all, there’s the financial risk. Although it’s rarely put this way, borrowing to buy a home is like buying stocks on margin: if the market value of the house falls, the buyer can easily lose his or her entire stake.
This isn’t a hypothetical worry. From 2005 through 2007 alone — that is, at the peak of the housing bubble — more than 22 million Americans bought either new or existing houses. Now that the bubble has burst, many of those homebuyers have lost heavily on their investment. At this point there are probably around 10 million households with negative home equity — that is, with mortgages that exceed the value of their houses.
Owning a home also ties workers down. Even in the best of times, the costs and hassle of selling one home and buying another — one estimate put the average cost of a house move at more than $60,000 — tend to make workers reluctant to go where the jobs are.
And these are not the best of times. Right now, economic distress is concentrated in the states with the biggest housing busts: Florida and California have experienced much steeper rises in unemployment than the nation as a whole. Yet homeowners in these states are constrained from seeking opportunities elsewhere, because it’s very hard to sell their houses.
Finally, there’s the cost of commuting. Buying a home usually though not always means buying a single-family house in the suburbs, often a long way out, where land is cheap. In an age of $4 gas and concerns about climate change, that’s an increasingly problematic choice.
...
But homeownership isn’t for everyone. In fact, given the way U.S. policy favors owning over renting, you can make a good case that America already has too many homeowners.
....
All I’m suggesting is that we drop the obsession with ownership, and try to level the playing field that, at the moment, is hugely tilted against renting.
We fought them on zoning law. We won our case with the zoning board but lost on appeal. It was a matter of law and I think our case was right. I don't think our attorney did a good job and I think they had a better lawyer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy
Does that make me a hypocrite like you say? I don't think so. I don't think you should be allowed to open up a nuclear reactor in your back yard. Your neighbors probably don't want that either. It is your property though.
I think that zoning plays a critical role in development. We argued that the site was not properly zoned for what they were doing and the zoning board agreed. On appeal a judge gave it back.
I don't think that is the same as the case I outlined at all. The man had a business plan and owned property. The City of Cincinnati didn't let him go through with it and now a judge says the City could be on the hook for millions. Meanwhile, the City and the Port authority gave the rights and his business plan to someone else, a party that even objected to the project in the first place. It wasn't that the city thought the project would be harmful or wrong, they just wanted someone else (with their money and connections) doing it.
I think you missed.
This is the key issue. Our government thinks home ownership is worth the huge costs involved with subsidizing home owners. But nobody can quantify the benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipe
I do know if both the mortgage tax deduction and GSEs went away, home prices would drop by about 35%. Never going to happen. Too many voters own homes.
Snipe you pointed out a very significant issue with Liberals though I would argue Democrats, not Liberals, that they primarily care about the theory of what is moral/right and not as much about execution. I have the same complaint about Republicans in that they care only about not having medicare, social security and other social programs rather than focusing on how to make them more effective and efficient.
If the Republicans would work with the Democrats to make these programs more effective rather than just fighting them on it the government could significantly reduce spending and eventually lower taxes. Find a way to stop the medicare fraud, offer incentives to supervisors within the various government departments to cut costs, remove ineffective agencies, etc. The Republicans are too busy playing politics demonizing the other side rather than working to make things better.
Lowering taxes is a great goal but you must decrease spending first. It is also important to find the optimal tax rate at various income levels to determine which rate maximizes government revenue. Lowering taxes can result in more or less tax revenue depending on how it impacts the economy. Lowering taxes for the middle class often leads to increased consumption and higher tax revenue but a lower rate for the wealthy doesn't increase consumption but can lead to increased investment though that should be more a factor of business conditions and ideas. Simpler regulations, especially for small businesses would have very positive effects on investment. If the Republicans would stop fighting Democrats on every initiative, especially on taxes on the wealthy, they could reduce and improve regulation. The country is at a point where someone must sacrifice and the wealthy are the only ones in a position to do it without further disrupting the economy. Let the Bush tax cuts expire for them and get some simplified regulations in exchange and the country will be dramatically better off.
Typically home prices rise near subway and other transit stops (probably excluding buses). So that is the initial impact of the streetcar. You should also see new businesses form in areas connected to the transit and a decrease in crime as homes in these areas become more desireable to young professionals.
Public transit also helps keep fuel prices down as consumption of gasoline declines through the use of mass transit. This does assume Cincinnati will be accepting of the transit and forgo the habitual drive to work or to the game, bar, etc.
As for the housing subsidies, etc and the potential impact of not having it: It is impossible to judge how different things would be had the government never gotten involved but it is safe to say less money would be tied up in housing and more people would be living with friends and family. With fewer homeowners benefiting from inflation of home prices the multiplier the economy got from this would have been far less impactful. There would be far less leverage in the system which also means the financial collapse wouldn't have happened or would have had a much different cause.
There is an argument for a different allocation of capital leading to a more productive use but without the leverage in the housing industry it is more likely the money supply would be far less than it is today. Some of that potentially productive use also could have gone to foreign investment which wouldn't lead to jobs here in the US. Too many variable to know what would really have happened up until now but I'd guess the economy would have grown slower but at a more sustainable rate so that the financial collapse never would have happened. That is not to blame the government for the collapse because it was bank executives that decided to do away with all lending standards in an effort to get their $50 million dollar annual bonuses. Had banks maintained lending standards the blow-up would not have happened.
I wonder what would be better for the poor, current policy or a policy that reduces the prices of homes by 35%?Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_x
Quote:
Originally Posted by boozehound
OTR has a lot of crime and that crime's proximity to downtown really turns people off. It needs cleaning up, without a doubt. If you don't make an effort to do this, you'll never know what could be and it's reputation will persist. There has been a lot of interest in turning that neighborhood around for years because people would like to live there.
Reducing the prices of homes by 35% would make a lot more people poor, so they'd have company.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipe
I'm sorry about that, I was thinking of the Rand Paul thread where you were examining Civil Rights, the First Amendment, etc. I'm a dummy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipe
So how does sending a streetcar through a bad neighborhood reduce crime?Quote:
Originally Posted by pizza delivery
For that matter, who wants to ride a streetcar through a bad neighborhood, particularly at night?
Avg price of home in Florida today = $99k - 3 yrs. ago $264KQuote:
Originally Posted by Snipe
I get that crime keeps people away from downtown. What I don't necessarily get is how we determine that all these people want to live in OTR, if they could get it cleaned up. The pro OTR-gentrification crowd wants people to believe that there are thousands of people just waiting for OTR to get cleaned up so they can move in. I'm not necessarily saying that isn't true, but I would like to see the data that those assumptions are based on. My guess is survey questions. The problem with surveying people is that they lie when being surveyed.Quote:
Originally Posted by pizza delivery
I also don't buy the 'downtown isn't safe because OTR is close by' argument. There are lots of bars and restaurants South of 7th street. That is a very safe area. I work on 7th Street and come downtown frequently at night. Crime is not an issue in and around the central business district. I would say that anywhere south of about 8th street is pretty safe. During the day it is safe all the way up to Central Parkway.
I would be interested to know how you are going to get all the poverty and crime and OTR away from downtown, vs. just moving it to another area in or near downtown. That would be a real trick. Those people would most likely move west to areas like the West End, Queensgate, Price Hill, and Westwood, many of which are already going (or gone!) downhill. Many of those areas have a lot of old homes with great architecture as well. They also have strong community advocates trying to clean up those areas. Maybe the OTR-gentrification folks can have a rumble in the streets with the Price Hill gentrification crowd ala West Side Story.
At the end of the day I support downtown development. I spend a lot of time downtown. The revitilization of fountain square has been spectacular and has been a significant boon for the area. I don't necessarily think that the street car is a bad idea, either. What I don't really get the 'need' to gentrify OTR and I think it is going to be a very tough process. OTR is a very rough area surrounded by a bunch of other rough areas. I don't see how you can make them all nice, safe places to live.
The Paul Ryan Roadmap to medicare is a good idea in my opinion. It gives health care vouchers to senior citizens and lets market driven decisions help reform the waste, fraud and abuse. I don't think that Democrats like the plan. Here is Ezra Klein: Paul Ryan's plan would end Medicare as we know it Here is Arnold Kling and Tyler Cohen:Quote:
Originally Posted by madness31
Tyler Cowen on the Paul Ryan Plan
Here is Paul Ryan himself talking about the plan.Quote:
He writes,
Quote:
We all know that health care spending has to be restrained in some manner. There are (at least) two approaches:
1. Have the federal government take a more active role in shutting down or limiting some reimbursements, based on efficacy studies ("death panels").
2. Turn some or all of Medicare into a fixed voucher program and let individuals choose which set of restrictions they will accept from private suppliers ("grandma bangs on HMO door").
As I understand Ryan's approach, he is putting a great deal of emphasis on #2, whereas most Democrats favor #1.
I wish I could say that "we all know" this. Some of the critics of Paul Ryan's plan seem prepared to argue that we can have the same health care services at lower cost by squeezing health insurance companies, drug companies, doctors, and hospitals. Most of the savings promised in Obamacare come from this squeezing. I think this is unlikely, but one man's flim-flam is another man's fervent belief.
Someone who favors (1) could say that consumers will make horrible mistakes if they are given health care vouchers, choosing unnecessary procedures and foregoing necessary ones. Someone who favors (2) could say that government will make horrible mistakes if medical practice is dictated by a central bureaucracy, because local information is important. Robin Hanson could say that medical services are as likely to do harm as to do good. So you cannot make horrible mistakes by cutting back on medical services. Cut them back any way you like. Even randomly cutting back services would be fine.
Social Security under the Ryan plan follows the same path, with headlines like: Paul Ryan's Killing of Social Security by Stephen Herrington of the Huffington Post.
Ryan's plan doesn't end Medicare, and it doesn't kill Social Security. It reforms them.
You seem to agree with Ezra Klein and the Huff Post when you say: [B]"Republicans...care only about not having medicare, social security and other social programs"
It seems that you have taken a side, and that you want Republicans to work with your agenda to get it done. I don't think they like the other side. They want market driven reforms in health care driven by consumers, not top down bureaucratic reforms.
These two sides believe in different things. It isn't just partisanship. Given the size and scope of our Big Federal Government, the pro-Big Government forces have been on the march for a long time. At what point should small-government free-market conservatives stand athwart history, yelling Stop? Where was the compromise in the Obamacare bill? Where was the compromise in the Stimulus bill? Republican Congressmen were locked out of negotiation. They didn't even get to read the bill before it came up for a vote. The Democrats had a fillibuster proof majority and they didn't even consider Republican. Nancy Pelosi's famous quote "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it".
Are you kidding me? Republicans were excluded day 1 from the Obama Administration. Now you complain that they won't work with Democrats and only want to demonize the other side. Do you remember what it was like when George Bush was in office? No demonizing the other side there.Quote:
The Republicans are too busy playing politics demonizing the other side rather than working to make things better.
Could you then clarify what I said that you found to be odius, hateful or repugnant in that post?Quote:
Originally Posted by pizza delivery
Snipe, I knew I didn't spend enough time on what I was trying to say, but you've made it clear the weaknesses. I was responding to your statement:Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipe
I sort of misspoke when I said "if there was only private housing..." because I thought it was clear (it wasn't) that we were debating the terms of life without Fanny and Freddy, while present day it accounts for so much of the mortgage industry's "strength".Quote:
If Fannie and Freddie go away, people will continue to live in homes. Mud huts are not in our future.
My overall implied point, which madness31 really made clear, was that without the aid of the government throughout recent history, there would be less people in houses of their own. A lot less. That would likely result in very few people controlling a whole bunch of other people's housing. The prices for rent could spiral upwards at that point, pricing out the poorest. Also, if for any reason another Great Depression sized event came along you'd find many more people out of doors unless, of course, the government decided at that point to help sustain the landlords so they didn't kick out renters. But that doesn't seem to be in your picture ever - the government helping people out - so I don't imagine in your world there would be a shortage of homeless people. I wasn't trying to tie the GD with the housing market, I was taking an overall look at the risks of deregulation, and the risks of no safety net.
As far as my point about greedy rich people, don't you think anti-trust laws came about for a reason? This overall idea that private citizens and businesses will be judicious and fair with their wealth is so totally against the facts.
When it comes to regulation "in concept if nothing else", that was a concession I didn't need to make, but did. The point is that the system of government is in place to enact fairness. Despite your indignity, my indignity, anyone's about it, the government has enacted more fairness in society than any unregulated wild west could ever have. The rules of private industry trample fairness wherever possible, which when regulated is passable. I don't think I have the moral high ground, I just don't think the idea of crumbling the foundations of what we have will lead to more freedom and well being. You make a habit of trying to do that.
As for Krugman, all it seems he wants to do is subsidize renters, which I'm not sure supports your world view:
Quote:
All I’m suggesting is that we drop the obsession with ownership, and try to level the playing field that, at the moment, is hugely tilted against renting.
Since I and others have gone on forever about this, how about you tell me how a bad neighborhood gets better? You 87, make it better.Quote:
Originally Posted by XU 87
Neither question has been specifically addressed, particularly my second one.Quote:
Originally Posted by pizza delivery
I found the argument's implications odious. Considering repealing the Civil Rights Act to the benefit of whom? Really a wretched idea, one which solves no problems, just walks away from them. You were measured and genuine in that thread, however, and I apologize for the attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snipe
Quote:
Originally Posted by XU 87
Investment. Private investment even!
Did you read the article in the beginning of the thread?
I can't recall if you ever offered any solutions for OTR though.
Essentially, OTR is right on top of downtown. You have to drive through it or past it to get there from the north. People talk about downtown being dangerous and that's enough. I'm not saying it's unsafe for you or others in lot's of places. The perception needs changing. That and there is a close enough proximity of violent crime in OTR that it makes some people uncomfortable. Downtown isn't that big. If you're comfortable down there, you're in some kind of minority, meaning you've actually been there and noticed it's not bad. Many people haven't or aren't as open minded.Quote:
Originally Posted by boozehound
I think the city leaders have looked at this problem, part perception, part reality, and decided that OTR as it stands isn't worth putting up with, so they're going to change it. Other neighborhoods, further out, that don't attract visitors or businesses, will be the first effected.
1) The article talks about the "hope" that private investment will follow. There is no evidence that it has or will, as the article admits.Quote:
Originally Posted by pizza delivery
2) Assuming we do get some private investment along the route, does this mean the criminals in the area are going to stop committing crimes? Was OTR any safer when the Main Street bars were doing well?
3) I have a hard time believing that, particularly at night, many people will want to take a streetcar through one of Cincinnati's most dangerous neighborhoods. One violent crime and whatever ridership existed will come to a stop. (See Main Street bars after the riots).
4) What to do about OTR? Building a streetcar will not change OTR''s core problems of lack of family structures which then feed into lack of education, drugs and crime.
Let me be clear about one thing. I grew up in this city and have worked downtown for over 15 years. There is no place else in town I would rather work. I really like downtown and go there fairly frequently to eat on weekends. From a personal standpoint, and coming from a guy who occasionally likes to sip a few after work, I want downtown development (particularly good bars that serve cheap beer). I want the hour and a half before a Reds game to be like a Cubs game at Wrigley. I would like to see OTR changed (as well as other Cincinnati neighborhoods). But building a streetcar at a yearly loss of $2 million isn't going to do much, if anything, for downtown or OTR. And it's not a good use of taxpayer money.
Actually the Republicans were quite active during the healthcare debate until the last couple months when the Dems gave up. Initially it was going to be a public option, not mandatory but provided by the government rather than through insurance companies. Those with insurance could continue to receive their employer's insurance. Republicans demonized this as socialism and the Dems changed it to go through private providers. Along with this change came stipulations on businesses to offer insurance for employees. I don't know all the details of the final bill as I have no intention of reading the 2000 pages but it is a mess and a lot of it was Republican influence. I'm sure the Republicans didn't get what they intended to get but the "compromises" made the bill far worse than the original intent.
The "death panels" term is misleading as the treatments in question are those that potentially extend life only a matter of months with no hope of a cure and are frequently experimental. The proposed change is to give the patient a more dignified end to their life where comfort and patient care is the primary concern. This is an incredibly cheaper option and isn't denying anyone the chance to live other than possibly a few extra months. This term is very similar to the "death tax" which only applies to multi millionaires, typically those with net worths in excess of $5 million and only on net assets exceeding that level (the $ level changes frequently $2 to $15 million probably covers the range). The average person and even wealthy people never pay a cent in taxes when they die, only those fortunate enough to have millions or billions of dollars. If you disagree with charging tax on the ultra wealthy when they die that is fine but using the term "death tax" is very misleading.
If changes are not made to medicare and social security in the very near future a true death panel will be needed as the country is very close to unsustainable debt levels.
I'm all for small government, unfortunately both the Democrats and Republicans are for big government. They each want big government in different ways but they want it. Republicans want a huge military (more than all other countries spend combined), frequent wars, definition of mariage, strict drug laws, wire taping, no abortion, subsidies, etc. Democrats want rules attempting to prevent corporations from abusing employees, taking advantage of insider information, cheating/taking advantage of consumers. They also want education, social security, healthcare, subsidies, gun laws, etc.
Personally if I'm going to get big government either way, I prefer the social expenses. I just wish they would do it more effectively. They both most definitely over reach but to me it boils down to healthcare and education vs military and wars. You need a strong defense but spending more than all other countries combined on a regular basis is insane.
It is my belief that the only way this country will avoid a collapse within the next decade (two max) is if a libertarian is put in charge and given support by congress. Ron Paul is a libertarian despite running as a republican. There are plenty of issues with libertarians too but the main concern for the country at this point is financial and that is the only party I'm aware of with any financial discipline. The US would still feel some significant pain but it could probably avoid a bond blow-up and currency devaluation with the change in leadership. Republicans and Democrats have both been given their chance and each proved to be a failure so it is time to vote independent.
For those thinking the tea party is the answer you might want to consider Palin is a leader in that movement. She might be hot but she likely has an IQ just above 70. If that is the leader you want then I'm sure you will get what you deserve (no job, commodity inflation, no public services, high crime, etc).
As much as I am dying to hear how electing Sarah Pallin might affect "Commodity inflation" vs. re-electing B.H. Obama, I have to ask this since you are weighing in on IQ evaluations: What do you think Barack Obama's IQ is?Quote:
Originally Posted by madness31
I used to go down to main street when the bar district was open. Main Street itself was pretty safe. There were lots of people and lots of police. If you got a block or 2 off of Main street in the wrong direction though I remember it getting pretty rough pretty fast.Quote:
Originally Posted by XU 87
Assuming that the Streetcar is going to happen, and that it is going to go through OTR, I think that they need to take great steps to make sure that the route is safe. Extra police details, etc.
Agreed. But as you note, just because a block or two is safe, that doesn't make the rest of the neighborhood safe.Quote:
Originally Posted by boozehound
True, but making a whole neighborhood safe often begins with making a block or two safe. Or, as a much wiser man once said, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.Quote:
Originally Posted by XU 87
Good point, and I agree 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by XU 87
At the end of the day it sounds like the Streetcar is a done deal, though. As long as they are going to go forward with it I hope that they really put the effort necessary into ensuring safety along the chosen route and creating an environment in which people feel safe. That won't be very easy because they will first have to drive the crime away from the Streetcar route and then change the public perception of OTR. If a few people get robbed or assaulted along the route early on it could do major PR damage to the whole project.
Like Kahns said, it starts with a block or two and (hopefully) spreads out from there. I really hope that this project works out. I am always happy to see development in and around downtown. Hopefully this will work out like the revitilization of East End along Kellogg Avenue. Remember what a dump that place used to be? (although not nearly as bad as OTR) Now it looks great, although I would argue for more commerce in that area instead of just housing.
To me, this is the biggest risk of this project. If the private investment does not follow, the project is a failure. Downtown and OTR as they are today do not need, nor will they support a streetcar.Quote:
Originally Posted by XU 87
I don't agree that there is no evidence that it has or will. One sound bite from the original article:
One guy has already sunk half a million on speculation that the streetcar would come, and has a million more to go. That's one guy, what he was willing to risk before they project even got approved.Quote:
Longtime Westwood-based real estate investor Fred Berger saw in 2008 a perfect combination of desperately low real estate prices and the promise of future growth in the neighborhood. He spent the next 2˝ years buying up about 35 sturdy brick apartment buildings in Over-the-Rhine, Pendleton and the West End, all in states of neglect. He paid as little as $10,000 for one property.
"It was a risk, because the trolley wasn't for sure at the time, but that's when you get the best buy," he said. He's spent about $500,000 renovating 40 units in the buildings, now available for either market-rate or subsidized tenants. He has at least twice that left to go.
All of the evidence that exists indicates there will be private investment that follows. The risk is that the private investment fails, or is not large enough to create a critical mass of retail and residential along the line.
I can't even guess as to what Obama's IQ is as their is too much conflicting evidence. On the one hand he graduated at the top of his class from Harvard law which is an impressive accomplishment. At the same time he has been very slow to grasp the severity of the economic issues and how best to deal with it. It is likely that his development in this area is slowed by the inability of those around him to grasp the reality of the situation and not by his own level of intelect. He has no background in Finance and economics so he would depend on others to teach him and there are few finance professionals that actually understand what happened and is happening. The mainstream economists and financial analysts have no idea what is going on. I suspect it is a lack of historical understanding of this subject combined with unknowledgable advisors that are causing this slow development but it could be his mind just doesn't think this way. IQ is closely correlated with the ability to understand relationships which is important in understanding finance/econ. A high IQ also plays a key role in doing well on the LSAT and being successful in certain types of law. If you assume the slow development in economic understanding is more related to advisors then you can guess his IQ is close to the 150 genius level but if you believe it is his own issues then it would be much lower (100 - 120). If he scored well on the LSAT then it must be at least 130.
Palin would lead to commodity inflation through a devaluation of the dollar. The US is in a very difficult position right now because if there is no growth it will signal defecits will continue to rise and investors/foreign nations will begin to lose confidence in the governments ability to make good on its obligations. On the other hand if there is growth but deficits continue to rise it will have the same impact. I believe Palin and those she supports would either create growth through tax cuts that reduce tax revenue more than it grows the economy or they cut government programs to a point where it leads to negative GDP and tax receipts that are lower than government obligations.
The same devaluation will occur if the status quo remains. If the Republicans don't begin working with the Obama administration on reasonable tax policy and on proper investment measures. They must get a handle on medicare and social security issues. Business taxes should be lowered and small business compliance burdens must be reduced. Another tax tier must be created with a far higher tax rate than the current top bracket. Someone must sacrifice at the ultra wealthy are the only ones capable without causing economic harm. Combining higher rates at the $1M level with business tax cuts, including small business regulation reform will eventually result in growth in GDP and tax revenue. It might not work immediately because the deleveraging process is incredibly difficult to overcome but it would show investors/foreign nations that the US is positioned correctly for the future and hopefully avoid a currency collapse. Palin and crew would never add another tax tier and raise taxes on the rich which would result in decrease in tax revenue when imposing the other measures. They would stop the infrastructure spending, probably the unemployment, and the states would begin downsizing teachers, police and fire fighters. The economy would collapse. The infrastructure $ have not been spent wisely thus far but infrastructure spending is critical to preparing the country for the future. There are decaying water and sewage pipes that need replaced to maintain clean drinking water and safe sewage passage. The power grids need updated to create efficiencies and avoid blackouts. Rail needs to be a focus to prepare for a time when the easy to obtain oil has already been drilled and prices of gasoline are $5 per gallon. There is plenty of oil but the easy to get oil is running out. Many major oil wells around the world are in decline. These projects must be moved forward but federal spending on roads should be stopped immediately. Let the states find a way to repair their own roads.