The Politics of Development

[fieldmarshaldj]

FMDJ, I certainly didn't mean to misstate or misrepresent what you were trying to say.  I did my best to abstract what your point was from a rather long and seemingly irrelevant stroll through Kansas political history.  If I missed your point, it definitely wasn't for my lack of trying to understand what you were aiming for.  Maybe you should get to your point faster, or better still, stay on topic in the first place. 

 

That said, you did do a pretty good job of clearing some of it up when you claimed in your follow-up post that all Moderate Republicans are actually Liberals (though they might disagree with you about that).  It seems to me that ideological purity tests are a convenient way of shifting the blame when the party you support makes a mess of the state they control.   As for whether or not you answered my points, I'll only note that you neglected to respond to the one question I asked you in my last post.  I'll repeat if you'd like another crack at it:

 

Which of Brownback's policies do you disagree with and would not incorporate into the conservative-fantasy utopia you keep talking about?  Or are Brownback and his tea-party super majority just a bunch of moderate Republicans (read liberal) too?

 

Finally, I absolutely LOVE the first sentence of your last paragraph:  "BTW, if Nashville and Austin were Conservative enclaves with that type of leadership, we'd have even greater growth and influx of residents."

 

--That's priceless.  Did you just pull that out of thin air?  Does wild speculation equate to making some kind of convincing argument in your opinion?  You do realize there have been quite a few experiments where conservative local governments operate inside of conservative states.  Why not use a few of those places as shining examples when making the claim that Austin and Nashville would be even better if we would only do it your way?  I guess it's probably easier just to make the claim without actually being able to back it up with anything whatsoever, right?

For your edification, you brought up Kansas, not I. I merely took the time to enlighten you about the state and its politics. I must commend your exceptional talents of obfuscation. Your attempts to crucify Brownback while utterly disregarding the gross malfeasance and incompetence of countless other state leaders of the more donkeyish persuasion is duly noted. Do tell me how other utopian left states are such... utopias under such visionary leftist leaders enacting leftist fiscal & social policies. Start with California. ;-)

I emphasized as well to you the nature of liberal Republicans (as the KS example) willfully and deliberately undermining the Conservative agenda, and were doing just that in stymieing the Brownback agenda. If you had a contingent of Conservative Democrats not adhering to the ultraleft cause and actively working to undermine their not-so-like-minded fellow party members, you'd certainly (or Brandon) would strongly complain about such. I also already explained to you, as an Independent, I don't support the Republicans blindly, and I especially don't when they pursue a leftist agenda as the "Moderates Republicans" do. A leftist is a leftist, whatever party they're in, and I oppose them wholeheartedly. I did not support the left-winger phony the Republican establishment foisted for President in 2012 (and absent Palin in 2008, I would not have voted for McCain, another left-wing phony).

I did not vote for Haslam in 2010 and will not vote for him again next week. I also similarly have no use for Corker or Lamar!, neither of these three showing much inclination towards a solid Conservative agenda. Indeed, were it not for the legislature, Haslam would be a clone of Bredesen. Haslam was far more comfortable with leftist Democrats and all but anointed one to succeed him as Mayor (Rogero).

No, I didn't pull out my assessment of Nashville and Austin (or frankly, most any other city). Of course, the only way to definitively prove my point would be to start electing Conservatives to the local offices. That's why I so earnestly offer up my "let's split the U.S." suggestion. You can have your utopia where fiscal recklessness and upside-down morality and ethics reign supreme, and my side can have fiscal rationality and pretty much everything else you and Brandon find "offensive." See which side makes out better. I already know the answer to that one. :-)

[BrandonTO416]

... this might have been a mistake ...

 

 

For the record, I really am mostly concerned with transit funding and was trying to make the case that we need politicians that will invest into infrastructure. Without it, any place moves backwards. It is the same for health care and other key issues the greater market doesn't have a solution for onto itself.

 

Haslam is a more moderate to liberal Republican, his base ties him down and gets him to be right wing quite often, but he isn't the primary problem. The problem is with the anti-government activists in the state legislature that can get elected in small districts, are also bought off by big conservative private interest think tanks, then take those ideas and implement them by banning a form of transit. But only for one or two counties.

 

These extremists don't have statewide appeal, but they're able to achieve some nutbag policies since the party they're dragging into the trash has to cater to them on a few issues here and there.

 

Did that extreme anti-transit law apply to Memphis and Shelby County? Because I'm not sure how it'd work since Memphis already has a bi-directional, central street trolley system. LOL

[dmillsphoto]

I won't tolerate name calling.

[BrandonTO416]

I'm a little astounded by how far you go out of your way to avoid addressing the issues at hand, FMDJ.  While I appreciate the retrospective of political infighting over the last 40 years in Kansas, you used about 1000 words to essentially blame the traditional Republicans (who are secretly Liberals in disguise) for stifling the tea party, without acknowledging that it's the conservative tea party policies that have crippled the state's revenues and led to underfunded (though already slashed) budgets and multiple credit downgradings.  You could've saved yourself from typing out the extended electoral history and instead just mentioned which of Brownback's proven disastrous policies that you wouldn't enact in your conservative utopia given the opportunity.  Seriously, for my own curiousity's sake, which of Brownback's policies would you personally have opposed?

 

On moving to accommodate your vote, I certainly don't doubt that you sincerely believe it's a good and/or reasonable idea.  What I'm trying to make clear is how completely wrong you are about that.  Moving is expensive, jobs tie people to certain places, political power changes hands in the same districts regularly, even among relatively politically homogenous districts there are still issues about which there is great disagreement.  As I said, if you believe that moving based on political representation is a good idea that people should take seriously, then you are being hypocritical by not living in a redder part of Tennessee if not leaving the U.S. altogether. 

 

Regarding Nashville vs. the state, I agree with your comparison to Austin and having our cake while eating it.  What you're failing to acknowledge, though, is that both Texas and Tennessee are getting some cake out of the situation as well in that each state has benefited greatly from having a progressive capital that has attracted talent and investment that otherwise would not have considered moving to the state.  You seem to have an idea that northern cities are all crime riddled, oppressive hell holes that people are clawing over each other to escape without acknowledging my earlier point about cost of living, regulatory ease, lower taxes, as reasons that companies and jobs are relocating.  It's true that Nashville and Austin have benefited from Tennessee and Texas' pro-corporate policies that have attracted businesses looking to save on overhead, but don't underestimate the importance of Nashville and Austin's progressive identities in terms of attracting the talent that allows for those relocating businesses to consider the cost-saving move in the first place. 

 

Finally, as far as cognitive dissonance is concerned, and before you go promoting the creation of this conservative utopia (that's different from Kansas in what policy-based ways?) let's not forget that blue states pay more taxes to the federal government while receiving less federal funding than red states, and blue states rank higher in things like education and health care and that's without even getting into the less important stuff like equality and human rights records.  Seems to me like we could use a little more of that around here. 

 

I'd like to mention - in general, not because I quoted you - that these states being mentioned aren't crapholes to live in, nor are they socialist in any way. San Francisco Bay is actually quite beautiful and attractive.

 

The reason why the San Francisco Bay Area is so expensive to live in is because of capitalism. Income is high because its the center of high tech, and it has a ripple effect throughout the entire region. I find it very rich that people who claim SF Bay is crappy and expensive is because of socialism, it is the dire opposite. There's so many creative, educated, and scientific minded people living in the Bay Area that the market itself is why its so expensive there. So if you want to blame cost of living, point the finger at capitalism. Its a nice area with very good climate, and its always a growing area. Not once has the Bay Area lost population as people still love to move there.

 

Cities like Detroit that have failed didn't fail because of politics. They failed because of capitalism. Detroit also has race divide that intensified its economic problems. Detroit isn't a government city, it isn't even the capital of Michigan. Michigan also isn't an ultra high tax state... The cognitive disconnect right wingers have on this city is laughable. The city was a victim of its success: it relied too long and grew too large based on a single industry. Capitalism is the real story behind Detroit, as there isn't much government there.

 

There are slow and fast growing communities of all political stripes in this nation. West Virginia is a cheap place to live, and its fairly conservative. It also is poor and isn't growing. Same thing for Mississippi, it really doesn't have really major cities, its a mostly conservative state, and it is cheap for cost of living. But as far as incomes go its low, and there isn't much economic growth. Casino development and a few auto factories can only go so far...

 

Meanwhile relatively liberal states like Minnesota, Colorado, Washington State, Oregon, and increasingly liberal states like Florida or California grow like hotcakes. I find the racism found in this thread suggesting brown or darker skinned immigrants aren't important enough to be counted as good growth to be a reflection of how poorly thought out their arguments are. And yes, very racist. If a significant amount of growth is hispanic, its growth.

 

Rustbelt cities like Buffalo and Pittsburgh fell because of reliance on industry that no job - union or not - could compete with China and Asia on. Again, it isn't a single party that is at fault.

 

There's also fast growing conservative states like Texas, or Georgia and North Carolina. States, might I add, that are getting more liberal by the day. North Carolina isn't particularly conservative anymore, and its growing. The entire southeastern part of the US is more purple by the day for that matter, it isn't just one state.

 

If we're going to discuss these issues, we need to put on a set of lenses so we can view the reality around us. I'm not sure you can simply say politics does this or that. Its silly to listen to anyone say "conservative states are great, liberal states are where everyone is leaving" and actually think its a credible argument. Anyone who makes such a statement doesn't have facts or reality on their side.

[BrandonTO416]

Much like with Austin in Texas, Nashville benefits from having a state government at odds with their local ideology. This is effectively having your cake and eating it, too. If either were to be the predominant ideology of either state, there would be a decided crash. California is a premier example of that. Leftism killed the golden goose or state. Nobody, save illegals, are flooding into CA to take advantage of its political or business climate.

 

 

I choose not to engage most of what you're saying, but California is NOT a failed state. Their budget situation has actually had a huge turnaround. California deregulated the power system (policy from the 90's and Republican Pete Wilson) and it began a number of problems over a decade ago, that began the political instability that led to the Governator. The housing crisis hit California first, and therefore it hit the state budget first. California experienced the depths of the Great Recession and market collapse in 2008 first because its a trendsetter state, not because its somehow secretly more dysfunctional.

 

Tennessee is far more socialist than California on its power grid. Between the TVA making most of the supply and much of the state with city owned or coop owned delivery utilities, it makes us look like a leftist paradise compared with California. We also have cheaper, more reliable power because of it.

 

Same thing in New York. I lived in Buffalo for 5 years, where the power supply grid is 100% privatized. National Grid - a private energy company - was the delivery company. You have a choice of about 20 shell companies that "supply" energy, but are really just middle men marking up the price. Far more capitalist than Tennessee's better, more secure energy system. Who privatized New York's electric grid? Republicans, of course. Pataki was governor for over 10 years, it isn't like these states never have Republican rule. Prices for electricity? Slightly higher, of course.

 

New York likewise has had a balanced state budget for about 3 or 4 years now. The recession screwed a lot of state budgets up in the previous decade... New York City is so expensive because capitalists on Wall Street make the most money of anyone in the country. You can buy tons of properties in economically challenged Buffalo, NY for only $75k because of capitalism. You're assigning failure in all the wrong ways, because you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

 

Most of the hispanic immigration into California is legal, not illegal. And yea, you're playing the race card. You're saying hispanic immigrants aren't worthy enough, aren't human enough to be considered real growth. Yet if someone calls you out on it, people like you take offense and yak yak yak all day about how the left is the real racist pit.

 

And you wonder why the right wing is becoming nothing more than a movement of old angry white guys, giving the rest of us white guys like myself a bad name.

[ruraljuror]

For your edification, you brought up Kansas, not I. I merely took the time to enlighten you about the state and its politics. I must commend your exceptional talents of obfuscation. Your attempts to crucify Brownback while utterly disregarding the gross malfeasance and incompetence of countless other state leaders of the more donkeyish persuasion is duly noted. Do tell me how other utopian left states are such... utopias under such visionary leftist leaders enacting leftist fiscal & social policies. Start with California. ;-)

I emphasized as well to you the nature of liberal Republicans (as the KS example) willfully and deliberately undermining the Conservative agenda, and were doing just that in stymieing the Brownback agenda. If you had a contingent of Conservative Democrats not adhering to the ultraleft cause and actively working to undermine their not-so-like-minded fellow party members, you'd certainly (or Brandon) would strongly complain about such. I also already explained to you, as an Independent, I don't support the Republicans blindly, and I especially don't when they pursue a leftist agenda as the "Moderates Republicans" do. A leftist is a leftist, whatever party they're in, and I oppose them wholeheartedly. I did not support the left-winger phony the Republican establishment foisted for President in 2012 (and absent Palin in 2008, I would not have voted for McCain, another left-wing phony).

I did not vote for Haslam in 2010 and will not vote for him again next week. I also similarly have no use for Corker or Lamar!, neither of these three showing much inclination towards a solid Conservative agenda. Indeed, were it not for the legislature, Haslam would be a clone of Bredesen. Haslam was far more comfortable with leftist Democrats and all but anointed one to succeed him as Mayor (Rogero).

No, I didn't pull out my assessment of Nashville and Austin (or frankly, most any other city). Of course, the only way to definitively prove my point would be to start electing Conservatives to the local offices. That's why I so earnestly offer up my "let's split the U.S." suggestion. You can have your utopia where fiscal recklessness and upside-down morality and ethics reign supreme, and my side can have fiscal rationality and pretty much everything else you and Brandon find "offensive." See which side makes out better. I already know the answer to that one. :-)

 

FMDJ, first, I want you to know that I respect you as a person who clearly takes the time to research various issues and form deliberate opinions about them.  I genuinely do think that you believe the ideologies that you promote are for the greater good, whatever that may mean to you.  I recognize we differ on what we define as 'good' and we may disagree about the best way of getting there, but I don't doubt at all the sincerity and 'good' intentions of your beliefs.

 

That said, when you say things like let's "Start with California" and 'I'm glad you brought up Kansas,' as though either could possibly provide evidence in favor of the politics you support, it's hard for me not to think that you simply haven't done much research into the current states of affair, so to speak.  I know that you used to be a liberal and you deeply resent the effects that incorporation by a progressive(ish) governing body has had on Antioch, but you have to recognize that the opposite end of the political spectrum to which you now subscribe has just as many drawbacks--increasingly amplified the further you get toward the more extreme range (e.g. equating moderate Kansas Republicans with the 'leftists'--as though it's a dirty word). 

 

In short, let's make this easy.  I agree with you that comparing California and Kansas might provide some insight to this discussion.  How do you feel about a quick Google search just to get us started?  Here's the first few articles my query came back with:

 

http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/2014/07/trickle-down-economics-vs-investing-in-the-economy-kansas-vs-california/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-gibson/kansas-tax-cuts_b_5589663.html

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24788-focus-how-kansas-and-california-debunked-the-gops-tax-cuts-argument

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/california-kansas-and-lessons-about-taxes

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emsi/2014/05/08/breaking-down-californias-jobs-comeback/

 

Ok.  So that's literally the first 5 links google spat back to me for this search: "economic growth of california vs kansas since 2010".  Here's a synopsis of the main points:

 

The Kansas Trickle-Down Model, Tax Cuts for the Rich, Outcome:

• Kansas’ job growth has failed to keep up the pace with the national average.
• Moody’s cut the state’s bond rating for the first time in over a decade, citing a lack of confidence in Kansas’ fiscal leadership.
• Revenue projections are down $700 million from the year before, meaning public services like schools have to be cut as a result. In just fiscal year 2014 alone, the state fell short of estimated revenue projections by $338 million.
• Kansas’ non-partisan Legislative Research Department estimates Brownback’s tax cuts will cost the state $5 billion in lost revenue by 2019. To put that in perspective, Kansas currently has an $8 billion state budget (Gibson, 2014). 

The California Investment Model Outcome:

• The state’s coffers will gain approximately $6.8 billion in new revenue every year, all of which will be invested in public education.
• California saw 2.9 percent job growth in 2013, making it the third fastest-growing economy in the US.
• California will have an operational surplus of $9 billion by 2018, meaning even more public sector jobs created and a better economy for everyone (Gibson, 2014).

 

Before you start complaining that it's just the lame-stream liberal media, I will concede that google does do a pretty good job of tailoring it's search returns to feed the searcher what s/he wants to find.  Maybe I'm getting fed my own proganda here, right?  It's certainly possible.  All that is to say, please argue against the methodology, premises, inferences and/or conclusions of the articles that google, not I, returned, and don't simply question the credibility of the sources and feel like you've done yourself and your political philosophy justice.  Feel free to provide your own sources to the contrary if your google reads differently than mine.  That might be enlightening for us all. 

[samsonh]

Fmj,

You seem really angry in your posts. Those of us that disagree with you want the best for our city, state, and country, remember that!

[BrandonTO416]

^^It is entirely possible that people on the right willingly ignore evidence. It doesn't matter how many articles you post about California's big rebound, how its fast growing and the budgets are balanced. It doesn't matter if you show him that New York has balanced several state budgets in a row and even upstate - the part of NY that is most challenged - has seen more economic growth recently than its seen in decades.

 

Facts don't matter in the right wing bubble. Its a fact-free zone. LOL

 

A matter of fact, you can't even convince a right winger that liberals aren't in love with taxes, they just view them as a responsibility of living in a civil society. Liberals and Democrats whine and moan about taxes just like everyone. In fact, some elected liberals have limited the ability of property tax increases. While I was in New York, liberal Democrat Andrew Cuomo passed a property tax cap, and this year it doesn't allow local governments to increase the rate of tax more than 1.56% from the previous year unless it goes to a referendum to voters where a clear majority must accept it. It was 2% when the package passed.

 

 

At 3 mins and 20 seconds, he starts to talk about passing the property tax cap while on a visit to Buffalo.

 

Liberals aren't for high taxes for the sake of high taxes.

 

Please be aware that the property tax crisis is not a Democratic issue, New York had Republican leadership before the past few years. New York, unlike Tennessee, has a ton of local governments that increase taxes. A lot of those are Republican suburbs of cities that don't want the services of the city. AND those municipalities started raising taxes because of the recession, which caused NY to get a little out of control.

 

Plenty of blame to go around, but a liberal got a hold of the NY property tax increases and put a stop to it. Too often conservatives have been able to say liberals are for high taxes for the fun of it, its time for people to get educated and realize liberals just want a fairer share to be paid by the top, and equitable taxes for the bottom relative to income.

 

More information for those interested:

http://www.empirecenter.org/publications/new-york-states-property-tax-cap/

 

New York State has a new law capping annual increases in local government and school district property taxes. Effective in local fiscal years starting on or after Jan. 1, 2012, the law limits the annual growth of property taxes levied by local governments and school districts to 2 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is less.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I'd like to mention - in general, not because I quoted you - that these states being mentioned aren't crapholes to live in, nor are they socialist in any way. San Francisco Bay is actually quite beautiful and attractive.

 

The reason why the San Francisco Bay Area is so expensive to live in is because of capitalism. Income is high because its the center of high tech, and it has a ripple effect throughout the entire region. I find it very rich that people who claim SF Bay is crappy and expensive is because of socialism, it is the dire opposite. There's so many creative, educated, and scientific minded people living in the Bay Area that the market itself is why its so expensive there. So if you want to blame cost of living, point the finger at capitalism. Its a nice area with very good climate, and its always a growing area. Not once has the Bay Area lost population as people still love to move there.

 

Cities like Detroit that have failed didn't fail because of politics. They failed because of capitalism. Detroit also has race divide that intensified its economic problems. Detroit isn't a government city, it isn't even the capital of Michigan. Michigan also isn't an ultra high tax state... The cognitive disconnect right wingers have on this city is laughable. The city was a victim of its success: it relied too long and grew too large based on a single industry. Capitalism is the real story behind Detroit, as there isn't much government there.

 

There are slow and fast growing communities of all political stripes in this nation. West Virginia is a cheap place to live, and its fairly conservative. It also is poor and isn't growing. Same thing for Mississippi, it really doesn't have really major cities, its a mostly conservative state, and it is cheap for cost of living. But as far as incomes go its low, and there isn't much economic growth. Casino development and a few auto factories can only go so far...

 

Meanwhile relatively liberal states like Minnesota, Colorado, Washington State, Oregon, and increasingly liberal states like Florida or California grow like hotcakes. I find the racism found in this thread suggesting brown or darker skinned immigrants aren't important enough to be counted as good growth to be a reflection of how poorly thought out their arguments are. And yes, very racist. If a significant amount of growth is hispanic, its growth.

 

Rustbelt cities like Buffalo and Pittsburgh fell because of reliance on industry that no job - union or not - could compete with China and Asia on. Again, it isn't a single party that is at fault.

 

There's also fast growing conservative states like Texas, or Georgia and North Carolina. States, might I add, that are getting more liberal by the day. North Carolina isn't particularly conservative anymore, and its growing. The entire southeastern part of the US is more purple by the day for that matter, it isn't just one state.

 

If we're going to discuss these issues, we need to put on a set of lenses so we can view the reality around us. I'm not sure you can simply say politics does this or that. Its silly to listen to anyone say "conservative states are great, liberal states are where everyone is leaving" and actually think its a credible argument. Anyone who makes such a statement doesn't have facts or reality on their side.

This has got to be the funniest thing I've ever read. SF isn't Socialist ? Detroit hasn't failed because of its politics. Absolute and complete cognitive dissonance at its finest.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Fmj,

You seem really angry in your posts. Those of us that disagree with you want the best for our city, state, and country, remember that!

I'm not angry, bro. I'm laughing too hard at the replies from Brandon and RJ to be mad. You fellas can't be serious. This stuff is comedy gold ! You guys gotta put together a revue, "The Cognitive Dissonance Gang" ! I gotta pass this stuff on for others to read !

[ruraljuror]

I'm not angry, bro. I'm laughing too hard at the replies from Brandon and RJ to be mad. You fellas can't be serious. This stuff is comedy gold ! You guys gotta put together a revue, "The Cognitive Dissonance Gang" ! I gotta pass this stuff on for others to read !

 

To be clear, Samson said you seem angry not that you are angry.  It's good to know that you're enjoying yourself over there, but your words may not be coming across with the whimsical tone that you've apparently intended. 

 

For me, these last posts of yours bring to mind the image of one man laughing hysterically in a crowded and otherwise quiet room.  Maybe he lost his mind, maybe it's a defense mechanism, or maybe he really knows some inside joke to which all the others are truly oblivious.  Here's to hoping it's the latter case for your sake. 

[dmillsphoto]

Funny. Here's the definition of "socialism" according to Investopedia:

 

"An economic and political system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production. Socialism emphasizes equality rather than achievement, and values workers by the amount of time they put in rather than by the amount of value they produce. It also makes individuals dependent on the state for everything from food to health care"

 

 

The first must be in place in order for socialism to exist. That is not the case, therefore those places are not "socialist."

[fieldmarshaldj]

^I get a kick out of the dictionary definitions of liberal and communist, too, since neither are what they are in practice or reality. You guys really got me going this morning, I just can't stop laughing.

[BrandonTO416]

As stated before, the right wing radicals don't know how the economy works and live in the right wing media bubble, a fact free zone. They're led by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and a plethora of right wing conspiracy theorist web sites and have zero respect for fact-checked, well reasoned research papers that consider multiple points of view. That's why I don't even really call these people conservative anymore, they're right wing radicals. Normal conservatives believe in doing things. Hence the civil war within the Republican party between the various groups.

 

California and New York aren't even remotely failed states, they faced the brunt of the recession because they're two of our largest states (and economically two of the largest powerhouses). They've bounced back from the recession. If there's any government or political policy to blame for the major recession we just had, it is because multiple parties went too far down the road of banking and housing mortgage de-regulation. I wouldn't say its because we had too much government. In the 20-30 years before the 2008 market crash we had a series of consistent deregulation programs that created a temporary bubble economy in housing.

 

And all these states that FMJ specifically has called out has property tax caps now. LOL California, Massachusetts, and New York all three have property tax laws that limit the ability of property tax growth, and New York in particular has low state level income taxes. Both liberals and conservatives passed laws to limit the tax increases.

 

But none of this matters in the fact free zone, because in the alternate universe that doesn't exist, liberals love taxes (they don't), and its pretty obvious right wingers don't have any ability to discuss these issues in adult fashion so there's no point.

 

I understand there are conservatives out there that believe in investing in the public interest. I understand they often just want to do it for less money (although, often I think conservative Republicans just want to give contracts to campaign finance contributors and friends just as the Democrat would rather give it to a union friendly company to increase wages for workers). But at least a real Republican you can negotiate with in an adult business setting.

 

These right wing radicals are extremists that don't deserve the platforms they have. And they need to be pointed out. It isn't normal, nor is it rational for a state government to try and ban a form of transit. This is literally crazy nonsense, and this is the kind of stuff that makes Tennessee sound like a backwash hick state sometimes. When you hear right wing activists come on here and start defending the nonsense, it makes it all that much worse.

 

I just want what is best for the state and the city, and it has nothing to do with this divide and conquer nonsense. Tennessee isn't the hottest economic engine in the country. Nashville proper has some pretty amazing condo construction right now, but you step outside the hot zone and there's poverty all over the state. And because our government didn't accept the Medicaid expansion there's more people here without health insurance and health care than the national average. This is another extremist policy, because its bankrupting hospitals that are caring for patients and not receiving the funds they are due. Many fine institutions like Vanderbilt University Hospital are very outspoken about how bad this has been for them and many other institutions around this state that are are the core of R&D in health innovation here. These are community leaders, people who make a difference in people's lives, and to the right wing extremist they're just a voice to be ignored like all other "socialists".

 

Many jobs that are in this state don't pay a great deal (hence why there's low cost of living, the market adjusts to people's ability to purchase, which again is capitalism). Be careful with what you call a failed state, just because there is some moderate growth happening in the Mid State (particularly central Nashville) doesn't mean you get the right to ignore problems here and point fingers and call names. Its called trolling...

 

In my opinion, we rise as a whole, or we fall as a whole. The rich cannot get richer until the vast majority of the population has purchasing power to buy products and goods and services. So to make the economy better, you have to work toward increasing incomes for everyone. And yes, sometimes government regulation (like in separating retail banking from commercial investment banking) is necessary and good. If that makes me a liberal, I'm proud to be a liberal. At least I'm not some nutbag.

[fieldmarshaldj]

To be clear, Samson said you seem angry not that you are angry.  It's good to know that you're enjoying yourself over there, but your words may not be coming across with the whimsical tone that you've apparently intended. 

 

For me, these last posts of yours bring to mind the image of one man laughing hysterically in a crowded and otherwise quiet room.  Maybe he lost his mind, maybe it's a defense mechanism, or maybe he really knows some inside joke to which all the others are truly oblivious.  Here's to hoping it's the latter case for your sake.

Now, now. Don't fret none. I completely assure you the laughter is genuine. I'm just glad I got out of the sheer madness of that ideology 28 years ago before I could reach the point of the wild illogical gymnastics required to believe that an upside down world is right-side up. Totally coo-coo for cocoa puffs.

As stated before, the right wing radicals don't know how the economy works and live in the right wing media bubble, a fact free zone.

And out comes all the MSNBC/NPR/Mother Jones talking points. Don't worry Bran, I'm laughing at ya, not with ya.

[samsonh]

Rapidly shrinking wha ? Your President added untold trillions to the debt, a figure so staggering, it cannot be grasped by most people. It's going to be close to $20 trillion by the time he has done wrecking us (though the actual figure is probably far higher). The great lie that he "cut the deficit" is a joke. The money has already been spent and tacked onto the bill. That he's spending x trillion per year instead of x+y trillion and calling it a cut is the typical disingenuous language of the left.

As for employment/unemployment, we've got more people not working than at any time in our nation's history in actual numbers. Staggering figures. The government choosing not to count them to make it look like our unemployment rate is coming down is another outrageous lie. The REAL levels are at Great Depression percentages, and that doesn't even begin to reach the levels in the Democrat-run inner cities. Combine these realities, and we're due for a crash of epic proportions that the productive class won't be able to cover. Who's gonna pay the bill ?

 

FMJ,

 

You should read the news about our economy, or drive around our liberal city to see a booming economy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2014/07/19/whatever-happened-to-the-deficit/

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/10/weekly-initial-unemployment-claims_30.html

http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-third-quarter-gdp-expands-at-3-5-rate-1414672315

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/10/21/unemployment-rate-below-5-in-15-states/

 

The government is counting unemployment the way it always has. I am sorry the facts do not back up your viewpoints. If you link some articles or stats, I will address those. But it is impossible for me to address anecdotes of how tough things are when the numbers do not back that up.

[BrandonTO416]

Now, now. Don't fret none. I completely assure you the laughter is genuine. I'm just glad I got out of the sheer madness of that ideology 28 years ago before I could reach the point of the wild illogical gymnastics required to believe that an upside down world is right-side up. Totally coo-coo for cocoa puffs.

And out comes all the MSNBC/NPR/Mother Jones talking points. Don't worry Bran, I'm laughing at ya, not with ya.

 

I feel sorry for you, because people like you are what make things worse for people when anti-government leaders get elected with their radical nonsense. You are no conservative, you're involved with radical right wing ideology. There is a huge difference between you and a conservative.

 

Its not my fault that you personally don't understand what you're talking about.

[Rockatansky]

If I remember my college political science course correctly the proper term for those on the far right is reactionary. Radical is reserved for those on the far left. 

[BrandonTO416]

LOL, reactionary or radical, whatever you call it, it is what it is. These are people you can't have adult conversations with, make deals with, and they don't think of others. Its the worst quality to have in leadership positions. The fact that any of these people make it as far as they do? That's what makes this absurd. Marsha Blackburn shouldn't be in Congress and Jim Tracy shouldn't be Chair of the Senate Transportation Committee. Anyone who thinks it is okay to ban a form of public transit has a nut loose upstairs.

 

I do think its interesting, not that I support DesJarlais, but Tracy couldn't win his nomination. It says a lot when Republican primary voters don't want Jim Tracy. Republican voters in a rural district preferred the womanizing abortionist, LOL... There's more social liberalism in Tennessee than any poll will ever reveal, I have a feeling even in religious Tennessee most people actually don't care about others' personal business, and that's the way it should be. Tracy likely would have been worse than Blackburn. Anytime Blackburn gets on TV she makes Tennessee sound like the hillbilly express. Its an embarrassment to everyone. Look at Blackburn, a hillbilly with MONEY! woo hoo!!!

[Paramount747]

Some people must have a dictionary with them because some of these words are above my MTSU education!

 

Left, Middle, or Right let's just make Nashville better.

[BnaBreaker]

I appreciate and respect FMDJ as a person.  He and I have a lot in common.  He's passionate about Nashville, urban development, and the conservation of historic structures, and I'm glad he's a part of this online community.  That being said though, I no longer spend time attempting to engage him in political discussions, because to me it seems as if any time a conversation wanders into the realm of politics, he almost becomes a different person altogether.  He seems to just kind of shut off and repeat whatever it is he has been lead to believe that a conservative is supposed to say, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, and I don't really understand why. 

 

As soon as politics enters the fray, a man who is otherwise extremely nice and respectable, who has eclectic interests and a great sense of humor, immediately abandons any tones of civility and right out of the gate starts slinging around the most hyperbolic words and phrases he can think of toward people that only hours earlier, he was enjoying friendly banter with.  It's almost as if he's auditioning for his own talk radio show or something.  I don't get it, but that's who he is I guess.  And to me, it's kind of a pointless venture to have a discussion with someone who's motivation ultimately seems to be merely to 'win' the argument for his 'team' in order to maintain the worldview he already has, and not to find common ground in order to arrive at a reasoned conclusion on an issue based on friendly conversation and evidence presented by both sides.  Note how FMDJ simply ignored altogether the extremely civil and well thought out post by ruraljuror in which he took the time to provide multiple sources to illustrate his points.  We all have the best interests of Nashville and the country at heart, and both sides have ideas that deserve to be heard, but what is even the point of wasting one's time talking to someone that flat out refuses to accept any information that doesn't validate the opinions and perceptions they already have?  There is no point.  Davy has, unfortunately, been convinced by someone that anyone to the left of him is an enemy who's words and sources cannot be trusted under any circumstances.  It's unfortunate, but it is what it is.  I thoroughly enjoy all of my interactions with him in which he's just being a human being. 

[BrandonTO416]

The election will be over soon enough, its only a couple days before its all over.

 

Its just a sad day that AMP won't go forward, because its another year the city will be setback. With the federal portion of funding complete it wouldn't have taken but one more session with the TN legislature and governor and then the metro council to get this done and shovels could have been in the ground before Dean left office.

 

The politics of this is that there are people who want to fund government and run government, then there are anti-government people who don't have public interest at heart. That's really the bottom line, and your average liberal or conservative candidates may want to fund and pay for things differently, but they want to govern at the end of the day. Neither of those two viewpoints are related to the strong anti-government activism you see in certain circles.

 

My question is why do certain people bother coming onto urban issues forums and start saying "build your own transit". Its a waste of everyone's time.

[BrandonTO416]

My my how quiet this topic became all of a sudden.

 

My projections for today:

 

Haslam wins since he has no opposition

Alexander wins, despite a credible Democrat opposing him

 

Amendment 1 is likely to be a NO. However, it depends on voter turnout.

[samsonh]

Just wanted to add another data point that flies in the face of everything FMJ and a few others on this board believe.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-04/u-s-deficit-decline-to-2-8-of-gdp-is-unprecedented-turn.html

 

It is important to not let your political beliefs get in the way of reality.

[BnaBreaker]

Just wanted to add another data point that flies in the face of everything FMJ and a few others on this board believe.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-04/u-s-deficit-decline-to-2-8-of-gdp-is-unprecedented-turn.html

 

It is important to not let your political beliefs get in the way of reality.

 

Not to mention 63 straight months of economic growth, rebounded home prices, unemployment is down significantly, the stock market is at record highs, the ACA is actually working for the most part, gas prices are decreasing, Bin Laden is dead, the national crime rate is down, civil rights are expanding rapidly, our cities (even Detroit) are experiencing major renaissances and on and on...all of this and then some achieved even in the face of historically high obstructionism from the opposition party who's actual expressed goal from day one of the Obama administration was to 'make sure he accomplishes nothing'....but...still...'uh...err...uh...benghazi!!'