The Transportation and Mass Transit Megathread

[BnaBreaker]

Good Lord.  Are you a real person or are you trying out for the next version of Heehaw? 

Edited March 29, 2014 by BnaBreaker

[nashvylle]

I will never be proud of a legislature that says "mass transit isn't what makes cities, highways are what make cities", or "mass transit is just a boondoggle", or "when are we going to stop borrowing money from China?", or "If we help fund mass transit in Nashville, then every city will want mass transit", or "we have an $8 BN transportation budget, all dedicated to roads, so none can go to The Amp".

 

The biggest boondoggle is thinking that roads are built for free and pay for themselves and America never borrows any money from China to build its roads, or that roads will always be able to support the transmuters when a city is growing.

 

A 2 year old can understand that a bus sitting in the same terrible traffic as cars is by no means "express" even if you call it "express"... people at StopAmp!

[ruraljuror]

With all due respect, social issues ARE important. Because this state hasn't gone full-on moonbat in a national race to the bottom to be "progressive" is why people are moving here from places that have. If you want "progressive", move to one of those other states where it is wholeheartedly embraced. Tennessee has spoken clearly, it doesn't want that. I'm proud of this legislature.

 

"Moonbat" progressive ideas like equal rights for all people and equal treatment in the eyes of the government?  Sign me up for that race to the bottom.

 

Are you under the impression that people are moving here so that they can one day carry their guns in parks and maybe get a little bit more creationism in their public education?  In fact based on your post, it appears that you think it's a reasonable proposition that people might up and leave their homes en mass every time they disagree with their government.  Are they supposed to move away right after the election or just when some questionable legislation gets passed?  What happens if you like your mayor, dislike your governor and are ambivalent about the president--should you move then?  By your rationale, If somebody didn't like it when their small hometown gets annexed by the neighboring city, shouldn't they have then moved out of the area entirely in protest? 

 

As much fun as it is to think of half of the citizens of Ohio, Florida, or some other swing state becoming ideological refugees after each presidential term, I think it's safe to say it's a pretty impractical idea.

 

Yes, the Tennessee legislature has spoken clearly, just like they once clearly spoke on issues like what types of people were allowed to use which water fountains and what teachers like Scopes were and were not permitted to teach in their classrooms.  Thankfully there were people around then who saw past the shortsightedness of what the legislature was so clearly saying, right?

 

And never mind that the Senate Bill is a blatant power grab that takes authority away from the local government.  The whole conservative approach to limited governance apparently goes out the window when something like a mass transit system is at stake.  I can't help but get the feeling that the majority of the opposition to the AMP in the legislature is pure politics.  Many conservatives seem to view Public Transit as an urbanized, progressive victory, and winning the game appears to be more important than solving the problem.  Maybe I'm wrong. 

[BnaBreaker]

^Well said, ruraljuror.  Thank God for the 'moonbat progressives' of their time that stepped in to halt the advancement of the ideals promoted in the Scopes trial and the in the segregation of public facilities.  The 'moonbat progressive' concepts of today I suppose include things like not considering gays to be second class citizens, and not thinking that Muslims wanting to build a place of worship for themselves is indicative of a secret evil plot to take over the country.  Oh well.  Once their irrational fears are adequately eased, and they get used to living with this new round of 'others,' this too,  shall pass.  Even in Tennessee.  haha  After all, a social conservative is nothing more than a progressive that is a few years behind. 

 

Now, back onto the discussion of mass transit, FMDJ, as much as I do respect you, I suppose what confuses me the most about you is that when the discussion is decidedly taking place within the context of urban development, you and I see eye to eye more than most.  You are one of the most staunch proponents here of responsible, dense, walkable, some (like me) might even call it traditional, urban design, and also of the conservation of historical architecture, which I appreciate and respect a great deal.  And I think we agree that for obvious reasons, as they have in the past and do still today, these traditional urban environments that you and I cherish so much require a good mass transit system to thrive and function like they should. 

 

However, when a discussion is placed in the political realm, all of a sudden, you put on your 'good conservative' pants and suddenly mass transit becomes nothing more than a 'moonbat progressive' idea; an evil, money wasting socialist plot, where everyone down to even the bus driver himself is nothing more than a servant to the evil decrees of his communist overlords.  It just seems to me that you are an extremely intelligent person that sees the benefit of having a well-oiled, efficient public transportation system, but then whenever the discussion takes even the slightest political turn, a switch is flipped in your mind and everything you think and say is run through a political filter of sorts.  I don't understand why this is.  You realize, don't you, that you aren't required to give up the power of free thought or parrot whatever vitriolic, ratings grabbing garbage you hear on talk radio to qualify as a conservative? 

Edited March 29, 2014 by BnaBreaker

[fieldmarshaldj]

"Moonbat" progressive ideas like equal rights for all people and equal treatment in the eyes of the government?  Sign me up for that race to the bottom.

 

Are you under the impression that people are moving here so that they can one day carry their guns in parks and maybe get a little bit more creationism in their public education?  In fact based on your post, it appears that you think it's a reasonable proposition that people might up and leave their homes en mass every time they disagree with their government.  Are they supposed to move away right after the election or just when some questionable legislation gets passed?  What happens if you like your mayor, dislike your governor and are ambivalent about the president--should you move then?  By your rationale, If somebody didn't like it when their small hometown gets annexed by the neighboring city, shouldn't they have then moved out of the area entirely in protest? 

 

As much fun as it is to think of half of the citizens of Ohio, Florida, or some other swing state becoming ideological refugees after each presidential term, I think it's safe to say it's a pretty impractical idea.

 

Yes, the Tennessee legislature has spoken clearly, just like they once clearly spoke on issues like what types of people were allowed to use which water fountains and what teachers like Scopes were and were not permitted to teach in their classrooms.  Thankfully there were people around then who saw past the shortsightedness of what the legislature was so clearly saying, right?

 

And never mind that the Senate Bill is a blatant power grab that takes authority away from the local government.  The whole conservative approach to limited governance apparently goes out the window when something like a mass transit system is at stake.  I can't help but get the feeling that the majority of the opposition to the AMP in the legislature is pure politics.  Many conservatives seem to view Public Transit as an urbanized, progressive victory, and winning the game appears to be more important than solving the problem.  Maybe I'm wrong.

*Just as a warning, I'm going to say some unpleasant things. If you're overly sensitive, best to go switch on MSNBC and go to your happy place.

Nope, "ideals" like made-up "equal" rights for certain PC groups, obsession with perversion, disdain for the individual, ethical relativism, and the destruction of moral, religious and cultural values in place for hundreds, if not thousands of years (and that's just the tip of the iceberg). There's no "progress" in "progressivism", it's just hatefulness of life, of normalcy, worshipful of degradation and the champion of rot. It's its own twisted, fascistic death cult with ready-made followers, those of the "low and no information" set (or the overeducated/indoctrinated). All the basic antithesis of everything this country was founded upon.

Yes, many do move to this state because it does respect the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution, that basic right to bear arms. Too many places and locales do not want an armed populace, because once the law-abiding are disarmed, the government is free to do its very worst to its citizenry. There's a reason Nazi Germany and other leftist-fascist nations did not want an armed citizenry. One wonders how different things would've been with millions of armed Jews ready and willing to "just say no" to their ultimate fate prescribed by the state. We've already seen the thuggery and criminality surrounding American politicians opposed to the 2nd Amendment. A Rhode Island State Senator and his toady blaring obscenities into a camera, and a prominent California State Senator, Leland Yee, who privately was engaged in deals to secure arms from Communist Mohammadan terrorists. This is your "progressivism" in action.

As for "moving away" after an election, I seem to recall all the whiny Hollywood "progressives" asserting how they'd leave when "fill-in-the-blank" Republican won office, yet they're still all here. It's funny how they won't move to a country more to their liking, such as North Korea, Cuba or Venezuela, both transformed into Progressive Utopian Gulags. They're fine to make a trip and lie about how wonderful it is (Dennis Rodman, Oliver Stone, Sean Penn), but if they actually had to move there and be like the rest of the slaves in states with no rights... yeah. Ah, the paragons of Progressivism. The wonderful ideals. The odious hypocrisy.

It's hard to take you guys seriously when you go on about "rights" and "injustices" of the past when you belong to the very party that was behind said injustices, nevermind what newer injustices that lurk in your hearts that you seek to impose upon us.

As for the State Senate bill and your indignant complaint of "stripping power from localities", you "progressives" seem to be fine and dandy with federal impositions (either from the White House, Congressional or Judicial tyranny) and blatant violations of the Constitution on a daily basis over the states. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, you squeal like a stuck pig. No, the real reason why the leg is putting its foot down is because this is wasteful spending, something you Progressives are experts on, and it does not solve the problem. If they were hell-bent on "ruining" Nashville and killing the proverbial goose that laid the golden egg, they'd just let the left do whatever they want. We'll soon turn into the urban hades that so many "prog" cities became in the 20th century. And you wonder why my side fights like hell to stop that insanity from taking hold.

[ruraljuror]

*Just as a warning, I'm going to say some unpleasant things. If you're overly sensitive, best to go switch on MSNBC and go to your happy place.

Nope, "ideals" like made-up "equal" rights for certain PC groups, obsession with perversion, disdain for the individual, ethical relativism, and the destruction of moral, religious and cultural values in place for hundreds, if not thousands of years (and that's just the tip of the iceberg). There's no "progress" in "progressivism", it's just hatefulness of life, of normalcy, worshipful of degradation and the champion of rot. It's its own twisted, fascistic death cult with ready-made followers, those of the "low and no information" set (or the overeducated/indoctrinated). All the basic antithesis of everything this country was founded upon.

Yes, many do move to this state because it does respect the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution, that basic right to bear arms. Too many places and locales do not want an armed populace, because once the law-abiding are disarmed, the government is free to do its very worst to its citizenry. There's a reason Nazi Germany and other leftist-fascist nations did not want an armed citizenry. One wonders how different things would've been with millions of armed Jews ready and willing to "just say no" to their ultimate fate prescribed by the state. We've already seen the thuggery and criminality surrounding American politicians opposed to the 2nd Amendment. A Rhode Island State Senator and his toady blaring obscenities into a camera, and a prominent California State Senator, Leland Yee, who privately was engaged in deals to secure arms from Communist Mohammadan terrorists. This is your "progressivism" in action.

As for "moving away" after an election, I seem to recall all the whiny Hollywood "progressives" asserting how they'd leave when "fill-in-the-blank" Republican won office, yet they're still all here. It's funny how they won't move to a country more to their liking, such as North Korea, Cuba or Venezuela, both transformed into Progressive Utopian Gulags. They're fine to make a trip and lie about how wonderful it is (Dennis Rodman, Oliver Stone, Sean Penn), but if they actually had to move there and be like the rest of the slaves in states with no rights... yeah. Ah, the paragons of Progressivism. The wonderful ideals. The odious hypocrisy.

It's hard to take you guys seriously when you go on about "rights" and "injustices" of the past when you belong to the very party that was behind said injustices, nevermind what newer injustices that lurk in your hearts that you seek to impose upon us.

As for the State Senate bill and your indignant complaint of "stripping power from localities", you "progressives" seem to be fine and dandy with federal impositions (either from the White House, Congressional or Judicial tyranny) and blatant violations of the Constitution on a daily basis over the states. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, you squeal like a stuck pig. No, the real reason why the leg is putting its foot down is because this is wasteful spending, something you Progressives are experts on, and it does not solve the problem. If they were hell-bent on "ruining" Nashville and killing the proverbial goose that laid the golden egg, they'd just let the left do whatever they want. We'll soon turn into the urban hades that so many "prog" cities became in the 20th century. And you wonder why my side fights like hell to stop that insanity from taking hold.

 

 

So...if I understand you correctly:

 

Progressivism is an amoral death cult.  The German Jews could've stopped the Nazis if only they'd had more pistols (definitely would've saved US and the Russians a lot of trouble/tanks).  Alec Baldwin is an idiot and his threats to leave the country turned out to be pointless (like I said, relocating based on elections is a bad idea). Progressives have some kind of injustice lurking in their hearts (whatever that means), and Nashville would be lost without the beneficent guidance of the conservatives in our state legislature.

 

Was that about it?

 

As much as I love a good manifesto, I think there are probably better venues for you to do your venting.  Ever considered a career in AM talk radio?  I think there's an audience out there who would totally eat this kind of stuff up. 

Edited March 29, 2014 by ruraljuror

[fieldmarshaldj]

^Well said, ruraljuror.  Thank God for the 'moonbat progressives' of their time that stepped in to halt the advancement of the ideals promoted in the Scopes trial and the in the segregation of public facilities.  The 'moonbat progressive' concepts of today I suppose include things like not considering gays to be second class citizens, and not thinking that Muslims wanting to build a place of worship for themselves is indicative of a secret evil plot to take over the country.  Oh well.  Once their irrational fears are adequately eased, and they get used to living with this new round of 'others,' this too,  shall pass.  Even in Tennessee.  haha  After all, a social conservative is nothing more than a progressive that is a few years behind. 

 

Now, back onto the discussion of mass transit, FMDJ, as much as I do respect you, I suppose what confuses me the most about you is that when the discussion is decidedly taking place within the context of urban development, you and I see eye to eye more than most.  You are one of the most staunch proponents here of responsible, dense, walkable, some (like me) might even call it traditional, urban design, and also of the conservation of historical architecture, which I appreciate and respect a great deal.  And I think we agree that for obvious reasons, as they have in the past and do still today, these traditional urban environments that you and I cherish so much require a good mass transit system to thrive and function like they should. 

 

However, when a discussion is placed in the political realm, all of a sudden, you put on your 'good conservative' pants and suddenly mass transit becomes nothing more than a 'moonbat progressive' idea; an evil, money wasting socialist plot, where everyone down to even the bus driver himself is nothing more than a servant to the evil decrees of his communist overlords.  It just seems to me that you are an extremely intelligent person that sees the benefit of having a well-oiled, efficient public transportation system, but then whenever the discussion takes even the slightest political turn, a switch is flipped in your mind and everything you think and say is run through a political filter of sorts.  I don't understand why this is.  You realize, don't you, that you aren't required to give up the power of free thought or parrot whatever vitriolic, ratings grabbing garbage you hear on talk radio to qualify as a conservative?

Since I responded to some of those points to ruraljuror, I'll try to address what I didn't...

I'm not sure if you're implying my politics runs at odds with my views on urban development. It's my own personally held beliefs. There's a notion that Conservative politics doesn't much concern itself with urban policies, if only because Republicans aren't in charge of many cities. Some are, some aren't. I wrote to former "moderate" GOP Indiana Congressman and Mayor of Indianapolis Bill Hudnut back in the '90s after seeing him give a discussion on urban issues. He mistook my interest for being more towards the left, when it isn't. Reconciling it for myself isn't a problem, but it may baffle some.

Some guerrillas on the right, fed up with decades of assault on their values and the decay from opposition policies, are fine to see it (in the words of an old Black Panther) "Burn, baby, burn." I, however, don't. I spent some time recently doing extensive "touring" (online) of all of Detroit (and previously St. Louis, Cincinnati, Little Rock, Louisville, Charleston). Meaning reviewing the neighborhoods within the city limits at street level, the architecture, the successes, the failures, the pathologies, et al. Despite the rot and decay I've seen, I'm not ready to simply write them off. However, in my estimation, one would have to be blind and pig-ignorant not to come to the political and social conclusions I have as to why things have turned out as they have. This is why I hold my views, and why I find the opposition to be so completely and totally wrong (not just with municipal mismanagement, but federal as well, which aided the madness).

My family's most famous member ran St. Louis for 12 years (1913-1925), and under his leadership, people flooded into the city. He was not of the left-wing mindset. A successful businessman and builder. He couldn't even get elected Mayor there today (despite having set the record, until the current Mayor, of longest time in office), all because he was a Republican. He believed in urbanity. They named buildings after him (Kiel Auditorium). He would've been horrified to see what the policies of 7 decades of the opposition did to his city and that it is a shell of its former self.

When it comes to some urban issues, I have to balance what I might want to see from an aesthetic viewpoint vs. the practical costs (or basically ask, "is it feasible ?" "Will it work ?"). I remember on our former sister website, the Nashville Charrette, we were discussing streetcars. The host owner and moderator, IIRC, was very excited about it and laid out where he thought the lines should go. I said it would be beautiful, get all the old cars up and running again on the streets like they used to be before the menace of urban renewal ripped them out. Problem, though, I asked, who will pay for it ?

I look at the AMP thing and to me, and others, it looks like a big expensive bus that's just going to hog a few lanes of traffic, and instead of alleviating the problem of congestion, will instead make it worse. I favor as one solution to urban woes (excluding cultural, since that's a different ball of wax, even if tied in) having private enterprise or initiatives to take a thwack at some of these issues. Privatization and profit aren't dirty words. Government just doesn't do things well or efficiently, it isn't meant to. Why so many put their faith in trust in it when it proves that fact time and time again is crazy.

Besides that, what do I believe in ? I believe in a well-educated (not well-indoctrinated) populace, one that believes and aspires to the highest religious, moral and ethical virtues. A basic belief in the value of the individual. This is everything that runs counter to what "progressivism" stands for. It is not a nanny state, a big government state, a bureaucratic nightmare, oppressive to the individual. The Constitution was written by free men for a free people, but all we've seen is a dismantling of it bit by bit, by tyrannical politicians & jurists, aided by nefarious media & educational types that loathe what it stands for.

We've been going in the wrong direction for a long time now in this country, especially in the last 50 years, in almost every category. We cannot hope to repair the damages, either to the culture, to the country, to our cities, until we restore those values and virtues in the people. "Progressives" do not want that restoration, because it threatens their lock on power, their bread and butter. They created the mess, deliberately so, over the course of more than a century, in order to breed that dependence. All the while they point at my side and villify us, because they are terrified at being exposed.

The mantra of the left has always held true, in order to rebuild this utopia on earth, all must be destroyed first. They always end up the same. These experiments only lead to failure, misery and death. It's nothing new. Those ideals were once applied in Massachusetts in the early 1600s. It only resulted in starvation and death. 4 centuries later, you still have adherents chiming in, "But if I'm in charge, I'll make it work ! It's never been done right !" Yup, it has been done "right." It's why I don't believe any sane, rational, educated individual can keep believing in and pushing this ideological menace to mankind when its results are already known...

It just reminds me of the Einstein quote, that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

P.S. I know the red herrings and talking points are flying at me fast and furious, but you'll be happy to know that I don't listen to talk radio or rarely Fox News, which is too establishment for my tastes. I never needed to. I came at my own conclusions all by myself, just by seeing the left in action.

[fieldmarshaldj]

So...if I understand you correctly:

 

Progressivism is an amoral death cult.  The German Jews could've stopped the Nazis if only they'd had more pistols (definitely would've saved US and the Russians a lot of trouble/tanks).  Alec Baldwin is an idiot and his threats to leave the country turned out to be pointless (like I said, relocating based on elections is a bad idea). Progressives have some kind of injustice lurking in their hearts (whatever that means), and Nashville would be lost without the beneficent guidance of the conservatives in our state legislature.

 

Was that about it?

 

As much as I love a good manifesto, I think there are probably better venues for you to do your venting.  Ever considered a career in AM talk radio?  I think there's an audience out there who would totally eat this kind of stuff up.

Nope. Just the usual red herrings and talking points from your side. Mustn't try to engage in an intellectual discussion or close inspection of your own belief system and its results over the course of a century. If I still believed in its supremacy, knowing what I do, I'd be mightily trying to yell, "SQUIRREL !" any time someone dared to question it to distract the rubes. Anyway, I'll let you go back to your happy place at MSNBC or NPR or the echo chamber here. Toodles.

...and now back to the AMP discussion, already in progress.

Edited March 29, 2014 by fieldmarshaldj

[UTgrad09]

I think we're straying a bit from the topic. Obviously politics ARE a big part of this. But let's leave out the moonbat liberal and gun-toting conservative talk and keep the politics transportation oriented. We have a place called the Coffee House for the rest.

[ruraljuror]

Nope. Just the usual red herrings and talking points from your side. Mustn't try to engage in an intellectual discussion or close inspection of your own belief system and its results over the course of a century. If I still believed in its supremacy, knowing what I do, I'd be mightily trying to yell, "SQUIRREL !" any time someone dared to question it to distract the rubes. Anyway, I'll let you go back to your happy place at MSNBC or NPR or the echo chamber here. Toodles.

...and now back to the AMP discussion, already in progress.

 

What red herrings and talking points are you referring to?  All I did was summarize your rant and advise you to look into a career in talk radio.  Where are the red herrings and talking points?  I can't find them.

 

I would submit that defending yourself by claiming that someone else is using red herrings and talking points...is in fact a red herring and a talking point!  It's like a reflex that fires even when it clearly doesn't apply.

 

But seriously, you are kidding yourself if you think that you're encouraging 'intellectual discussion' when you start by defining your opposition as having a "hatefulness of life, of normalcy, worshipful of degradation and the champion of rot. It's its own twisted, fascistic death cult."

 

That's not how reasoned debate sounds.  That's how street corner preachers sound. 

Edited March 29, 2014 by ruraljuror

[BnaBreaker]

Whoa, I'm in a death cult?  Cool!!! 

[nashvylle]

Fieldmarshaldj-

 

Can you please explain to me why when Tennessee has an $8 BILLION dollar budget ONLY for roads, you don't seem to care at all. Yet when Tennessee has the FIRST actual attempt at mass transit in decades, and the project chosen was the cheapest project by HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS, people suddenly start crying "wasteful spending"!!!!

 

It makes zero sense. How do we think roads are paid for? Why does Tennessee only allow its citizens to use their federal dollars for roads, and their personal dollars for cars, gas, car insurance?

 

It is not right. 

[grilled_cheese]

Not to mention that TN is in the top ten of states that rely on the Feds.

 

The argument that "my constituents won't use the Amp" vs. "residents of Bend, OR won't use an interstate that runs in TN."

 

Just as laughable as the liquor store lobbyists argument that "wine isn't food".  Well, neither are lightbulbs, detergent, magazines, pencils, etc.

[Guest]

Goodness knows that I have tried to stay out of the fracas, but I will attempt to share my opinion on the seemingly unrelated items detailed in your previous post.

Since you did not share your source document (link) stating that TN is in the top ten of states receiving federal dollars I must make some assumptions. 1st is that the total measured is on a per capita basis, 2nd is that the amounts are minus income taxes paid, and 3rd is that it counts total federal programs e.g. defense, energy, SS, ... In the previous sample reports that I have read the southern (red) states often ranked higher due to military spending (bases, defense contractors, and having snowbirds (retirees) relocate to souther/western states. TN not only has most of Fort Campbell military base, it also has the DoD and DoE labs in Oak Ridge plus TVA (which is a boondoggle and should deb privatized in a reasonable manner).

Your second point attempting to equate the AMP issue with a federal Interstate is the proverbial apples and oranges ...
The main reason for the Eisenhower national interstate system was one of national defense during the cold war. You may want to enjoy riding the AMP but let us not conflate the issues.

Lastly, and maybe I am missing your point, but it is exactly the TN ®s, that you have repeatedly condemned in this thread, who are overturning the no wine in grocery stores regulations that the TN (D)s imposed when they were in power...

That being said the issue is just politics... The TN ®s do not want to give Dean a boost by funding the AMP because he may run for governor and they do not want to help his prospects.... no surpass there and both parties make the same political calculations everyday in this country.



 

Not to mention that TN is in the top ten of states that rely on the Feds.

 

The argument that "my constituents won't use the Amp" vs. "residents of Bend, OR won't use an interstate that runs in TN."

 

Just as laughable as the liquor store lobbyists argument that "wine isn't food".  Well, neither are lightbulbs, detergent, magazines, pencils, etc.

[ruraljuror]

You bring up some good issues that I think highlight some of the misunderstandings at the heart of this debate.

 

First, here are a few links that cover the disproportionate doling out of federal dollars to Tennessee and red states generally:

 

http://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/#main-findings

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/26/blog-posting/red-state-socialism-graphic-says-gop-leaning-state/

 

You are correct that the concentration of military bases in the south has something to do with this discrepancy, but that's only a piece of the larger story.  For example, here's a link about which states have the highest percentages of food stamp recipients:

 

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/food-stamp-snap-benefits-enrollment-participation-totals-map.html

 

Part of the reason that redder states typically receive more federal money than bluer states is indeed because there are more military bases.  But part of the reason the locations for those bases were chosen in the first place is because land was cheap due to relatively weaker economies in the selected areas and because the money spent on those bases could serve as a strategic jobs program and economic boost for the places that needed the help the most.  I don't mean to say that all military spending is merely a federally subsidy in disguise, of course, but it's not an accident that our tax dollars are continuing to build obsolete tanks against the wishes of the Pentagon (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/28/army-says-no-to-more-tanks-but-congress-insists/)

 

I don't mean to say that the military is the only culprit when it comes to spreading out federal dollars among the states without being so blatant as a direct kickback.  There are plenty of bureaucratic office complexes, federal courthouses, Olympic training facilities, etc. to spread around.  Pork barreling only works because everybody gets a taste of the action (except Cooper).

 

Additionally, things like the snowbird influx absolutely influence these assessments, but, similar to strategic military base location, snowbird migration doesn't happen in a vacuum.  Beyond just the good weather, many retiree hotspots rose to prominence as a result favorable tax climates specifically designed to attract said demographic in order to spur already struggling economies, and, again, cheap land.    My point is, while it's fair to question the contributing factors that have led to a greater federal dependency among redder states, you can only get so far by handpicking which factors to consider in the case of any given state.  The trend as a whole is what's telling here.

 

 

Your point about Eisenhower and the Interstates is interesting.  You're right that one of the primary considerations when conceiving the interstate system was national defense, but there were a lot of other competing motivations that played as much if not a larger role in actually bringing the project to fruition.  Yes, it was probably a good idea to have the country cross-hatched with landing strips and capable of quickly transporting an army across 3000 miles in the event that we had to simultaneously defend attacks on two separate coasts, but we also wanted to create a more flexible interstate commerce shipping medium, we had lots of newly unemployed GIs who needed jobs, and we had a lot of re-purposed factories that needed start making cars instead of munitions and fighter planes. 

 

Bottom line, there were a lot of reasons that we built the interstates, just like there are a lot of reasons that people want to build the AMP (and a lot of reasons people oppose it). To write the analogy off as apples and oranges, however, misses the point of the metaphor.  Even if the sole purpose for the interstate system was military infrastructure, it has clearly evolved well beyond that.  When I40 gets a new off-ramp in Nowhereton, New Mexico, it's not because the DOD decided that was a necessary tactical move.  The point of the analogy is that citizens of Nashville don't complain when Nowherton, New Mexico (or Bend, OR) gets a new off-ramp even though almost none of us will ever take that exit, because sometimes we need and get new local off-ramps that we know most of the other people in this country will never see any benefit from whatsoever.  The same rule applies whether we are talking about building a bridge in Memphis, a 4 lane highway in Cookeville, or a BRT in Nashville.

 

 

Unlike your previous arguments, I have a hard time understanding where you're coming from with your remark about the Tennessee Democrats who apparently created the original ban on wine in grocery stores.  I don't know when the law originated, but what's with the fixation on the letter next to the name of those who drafted it?  That's the same logic FMJD employs when he tries to tie the modern Democratic party to the pro-slavery/pre-Civil Rights era Democrats.  There are only two parties to choose from, and their positions on any given issue have been far from steady over the past 150 years since they last had a serious third-party contender.  The Southern Strategy, as one example, turned into a pretty big game of red rover between those who linked arms with D's and those who sided with R's.  Regardless of what letter was next to the name of the legislator who decided to ban wine in grocery stores, I think it was a bad idea.  Who cares what label was worn by the guy who had that bad idea, especially considering how interchangeable those labels are?

 

 

"That being said the issue is just politics... The TN s do not want to give Dean a boost by funding the AMP because he may run for governor and they do not want to help his prospects.... no surpass there and both parties make the same political calculations everyday in this country."

 

A couple of posts ago, I mentioned that I thought many republicans in the state legislature opposed the AMP primarily because they saw a new-and-improved mass transit system as a progressive victory, and they were more concerned with winning the game than solving the problem.  Based on your statement here I guess we agree?  What I'm not on board with, however, is brushing off the gamesmanship as though it's acceptable.  Yes, both Democrats and Republicans often prioritize politics (and fundraising) above almost anything else, but that's not a good thing.  There's no better time to publicly condemn that gamesmanship than when those doing the politicking are people with whom you otherwise agree.  Even then, it's a long shot, but I think it's got to be better than complacent acceptance and blame-sharing, business as usual. 

 

 

 

 

Goodness knows that I have tried to stay out of the fracas, but I will attempt to share my opinion on the seemingly unrelated items detailed in your previous post.

Since you did not share your source document (link) stating that TN is in the top ten of states receiving federal dollars I must make some assumptions. 1st is that the total measured is on a per capita basis, 2nd is that the amounts are minus income taxes paid, and 3rd is that it counts total federal programs e.g. defense, energy, SS, ... In the previous sample reports that I have read the southern (red) states often ranked higher due to military spending (bases, defense contractors, and having snowbirds (retirees) relocate to souther/western states. TN not only has most of Fort Campbell military base, it also has the DoD and DoE labs in Oak Ridge plus TVA (which is a boondoggle and should deb privatized in a reasonable manner).

Your second point attempting to equate the AMP issue with a federal Interstate is the proverbial apples and oranges ...
The main reason for the Eisenhower national interstate system was one of national defense during the cold war. You may want to enjoy riding the AMP but let us not conflate the issues.

Lastly, and maybe I am missing your point, but it is exactly the TN ®s, that you have repeatedly condemned in this thread, who are overturning the no wine in grocery stores regulations that the TN (D)s imposed when they were in power...

That being said the issue is just politics... The TN ®s do not want to give Dean a boost by funding the AMP because he may run for governor and they do not want to help his prospects.... no surpass there and both parties make the same political calculations everyday in this country.



 

Edited March 30, 2014 by ruraljuror

[grilled_cheese]

nashville_bound, are you a metro resident or a suburbanite?  Just curious.

[Guest]

I suspect I am the only UP forum member that lives in Nashville's business district with a family of 4. The policies, developments, and ideas that we discuss on this board have the potential to directly affect my family's well-being; not in theory or in the macro but directly and intimately.

[producer2]

Having kids does not make your family's well being any different from those who don't have children. Families are families and we are all affected in some way. Your answer may give clues to the way you feel but that would suggest you have certain agendas like everyone else.

[nashmoney]

And the saga continues....

 

Koch brothers group works to stop Nashville Amp

 

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2014/03/31/koch-brothers-group-works-stop-nashville-amp/7100469/

 

from the Tenneessean:

 

"Ogles, one of two registered lobbyists on the staff, said Americans for Prosperity-Tennessee doesn't endorse or contribute to political campaigns. But he said it saw a political gold mine — and a national launching pad — in Republican-dominated Tennessee.

 

"With supermajorities in both houses," he said, "Tennessee is a great state to pass model legislation that can be leveraged in other states."

 

Go figure!

[vinemp]

To reply in a scatterbrained fashion...

 

Apples and oranges are still fruit: even as one would never mistake their species, they share substantial similarities.

 

I'm not gonna dump on Ike, but I do mean to slap a few of you on the wrists for omitting important elements in your mass-transit/the Amp/legislative/political arguments.

 

Pres. Eisenhower appointed Charles Wilson, President of General Motors, to the position of Secretary of Defense prior to the implementation of our interstate system. Prior to that appointment, however, GM et al. had long since formally (i.e. as a matter of long-term documented company policy) contrived to dismantle mass transit in tens of cities across the United States. To add insult to injury, those mass transit infrastructures were quite "progressive" by our current standard (i.e. We are ultimately scrambling to reclaim what we once had in veritable abundance and play catch up to cities around the world that got wise over 50 years ago.)

 

No one who's ever lived in a city with dedicated streetcar/bus lanes would ever argue that they cause congestion that would otherwise not exist. However, those same persons may comment on how frightfully expeditiously people of all ages from all SES brackets can get around those cities--to and from home, school, work, and play.

 

(And I don't think anyone remembering the "Southern Strategy" could look upon our GOP's general discursive practices without great suspicion...and not just a bit of disdain.)

Edited March 31, 2014 by vinemp

[Guest]

Of course, I think you forgot to include a couple of very relevant points from the story. 

This is better that the NEA, Sierra Club, WWF, NRDC, ... pick your poison coming into our state and actually making campaign contributions, IMO.
 

"We are an organization with a national presence, but we're state-run," he said. "I'm born and bred in Tennessee. They're trying to frame it as a local issue, but it's a local issue that requires state and federal dollars. Tennessee has 95 counties, all of whom are vying for those transportation dollars."

 

 

 

Ogles, one of two registered lobbyists on the staff, said Americans for Prosperity-Tennessee doesn't endorse or contribute to political campaigns. 

 

And the saga continues....

 

Koch brothers group works to stop Nashville Amp

 

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2014/03/31/koch-brothers-group-works-stop-nashville-amp/7100469/

 

from the Tenneessean:

 

"Ogles, one of two registered lobbyists on the staff, said Americans for Prosperity-Tennessee doesn't endorse or contribute to political campaigns. But he said it saw a political gold mine — and a national launching pad — in Republican-dominated Tennessee.

 

"With supermajorities in both houses," he said, "Tennessee is a great state to pass model legislation that can be leveraged in other states."

 

Go figure!

[fieldmarshaldj]

And the saga continues....

 

Koch brothers group works to stop Nashville Amp

 

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2014/03/31/koch-brothers-group-works-stop-nashville-amp/7100469/

 

from the Tenneessean:

 

"Ogles, one of two registered lobbyists on the staff, said Americans for Prosperity-Tennessee doesn't endorse or contribute to political campaigns. But he said it saw a political gold mine — and a national launching pad — in Republican-dominated Tennessee.

 

"With supermajorities in both houses," he said, "Tennessee is a great state to pass model legislation that can be leveraged in other states."

 

Go figure!

The Koch Brothers ! Oh, noes ! Run for the hills, Martha, it's the Koch Brothers and their evil, filthy, dirty, capitalist libertarian money ! You Progs got the worst case of Koch on the brain.

[ruraljuror]

The Koch Brothers ! Oh, noes ! Run for the hills, Martha, it's the Koch Brothers and their evil, filthy, dirty, capitalist libertarian money ! You Progs got the worst case of Koch on the brain.

 

I'm with you, Davy.  You were wasting time with all those cherry-picked 'facts,' thoroughly refuted theories, and revisionist historical accounts in your previous posts.  Might as well cut to the chase and go straight to the partisan cheerleading and obnoxious trolling.  Nice emoticon though. 

Edited March 31, 2014 by ruraljuror

[fieldmarshaldj]

^You mad, bro ?

[ruraljuror]

^You mad, bro ?

 

More disappointed than mad if we're being honest.  But yeah, it definitely can make me mad when people turn governance into an 'Us' vs. 'Them' game where nobody wins.  It's pathetic.  This isn't a competition. 

 

That said, I'm not really mad at you personally--maybe just a little because it's clear from your posts that you're smart enough to know better, bro. 

Edited March 31, 2014 by ruraljuror