Jump to content

Office boom centers on Williamson County


jice

Recommended Posts

It's not a war; we just call it a war. It's an "Operation." With all of our meddling in the world in the past several decades, I don't believe we've had a declared war since World War II, right?

Don't get me wrong, I think we should 'declare war,' But because Congress would have the ability to limit our freedoms, it's not PC to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

yes, but in my opinion, the commerce clause has been interpreted way to liberally. Why is it a benefit for me to re-build New Orleans? 1- I've never been and may never go, and 2- Whose to say another hurricane won't come and destroy it again in 5 years! More Importantly, as our population continues to explode around coastlines, damage caused by hurricanes will continue to increase; Am I as a resident of Tennessee going to have to pay to rebuild FL, AL, MS, LA, and NC every year???

And as far as the constitutionality of war in Iraq, it's not a declared war! But congress has in many situations voted to support our troops efforts there. The media tells you Iraq is on the verge of civil war, but soldiers on the ground say otherwise. They say the media is just trying to make big news. I would rather the Iraq money be spent domestically or returned to the taxpayers, but the amount we've spent in Iraq is chump change compared with the expense of another 9/11.

The first federal disaster declaration was in 1803 under the commerce clause.

Every supreme court decision in the ensuing 200 yrs--whether a "liberal" or "conservative" court has upheld federal disaster relief. If you think those courts should have ruled differently, that's fine, but there's a long, long, line of precedent.

How does it affect you? Banks failing because of unpaid mortgages for one. The effects on the Port of New Orleans for another, as well as the production and distribution of oil and natural gas (LA is the no. 1 gas producing state and the 3rd petroleum state).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does it affect you? Banks failing because of unpaid mortgages for one. The effects on the Port of New Orleans for another, as well as the production and distribution of oil and natural gas (LA is the no. 1 gas producing state and the 3rd petroleum state).

Completely agreed.

Not to mention the effects of thousands of refugees without homes, jobs, or basic necessities. If you don't rebuild it in the gulf, than you are going to have to rebuild it somewhere else. Suddenly you have thousands of kids without schools who would overwhelm the schools of neighboring states, as well as hospitals, roads, police, power, water, etc. Denying these people relief is tantamount to saying they don't exist. Now I know that no one here is actually suggesting that they don't matter, but by not supplying aid we would be suggesting that their taxes mean nothing anymore and that they don't deserve the basic infastructures that we all enjoy.

If we don't rebuild the gulf coast, then suddenly cities like houston, birmingham, atlanta, memphis, and wherever else would be stuck with enormous amounts of refugees that they don't have the means or funds to recieve permanently.

And then there is the environmental disasters that would take place from miles of waste and trash left to sit and co-exist with the already unstable environment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does it affect you? Banks failing because of unpaid mortgages for one. The effects on the Port of New Orleans for another, as well as the production and distribution of oil and natural gas (LA is the no. 1 gas producing state and the 3rd petroleum state).

It may be legal, and since you're the legal expert, I would say you've done a good job proving your point. But now you've waded off into economics - my specialty. Federal disaster relief leads to a net decrease in national wealth every time it is handed out. This is not opinion. The money paid out comes from taxes that were confiscated by force, thus sending that cash in a different direction than the market otherwise would have. In the case of Louisiana- the market had already decided that loosing all those homes and businesses was not worth the cost of insuring them.

Or put another way - the fact that insurance costs made insuring 100% of louisiana's losses impossible is conclusive proof that there were not enough people in this country who would voluntarily join a risk-sharing agreement (insurance) with the population of louisiana. So by forcefully taking people's money to give to the louisiana people you are lowering the rest of the country's standard of living. But it's not as simple as transfering funds - which would be a net wash nationally. The money the rest of the country had would go to many diverse uses, many of them investments in profit-seeking capital - which would have provided much needed profit and increased national wealth. A new levee system is not a profit seeking venture - so the potential wealth that could have been created by that cash is gone. And a smaller number of people had their standard of living increased as a result of that expenditure (just the people of new orleans) than otherwise would have if the money was left where it was (the rest of the country).

Or let me re-phrase it again if you still aren't sure: If the business being carried out by the people of louisiana was sufficiently important to the market, then they would have been receiving sufficent cash to insure themselves.

Example: No one prohibited the people of new orleans from pooling their resources together and constructing a bigger levee. I'm sure the city would have jumped at the chance if a community group raised 2 billion dollars and said, "hey mayor nagin, we've raised $2 billion, can we build/fortify the levees?" Nagin would have crapped his pants on the spot and said yes. But that's not what happened. Instead everyone took the risk. The market took the risk. The market constantly considers the risks and actors (consumers) in the market make the choices about what risks are covered and which ones they "let ride", so to speak. Federal disaster relief is nothing but a re-distribution of wealth, which leads to ever expanding circles of economic waste. The government is completely incapable of replicating the market's ability to correctly allocate scarce capital and minimize opportunity cost. Moreover - the fact that government is involved in the first place should tell you the opportunity costs will be huge.

As for oil production - those facilities are well insured and supported by major companies - they were back in operation long before congress even approved any katrina relief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Denying these people relief is tantamount to saying they don't exist. Now I know that no one here is actually suggesting that they don't matter, but by not supplying aid we would be suggesting that their taxes mean nothing anymore and that they don't deserve the basic infastructures that we all enjoy.

If we don't rebuild the gulf coast, then suddenly cities like houston, birmingham, atlanta, memphis, and wherever else would be stuck with enormous amounts of refugees that they don't have the means or funds to recieve permanently.

No. I don't see where you're getting any of these assertions. Their federal taxes go to social security, medicare, and military, and a few others. Even if they re-locate to memphis (for example) they are still recieving these benefits. Now maybe their city taxes paid for roads, utilities, and levees - but they already got the benefits from those taxes. It is Hurricane Katrina who has said that those taxes "mean nothing", not the rest of the united states. By not supplying aid, the rest of the country is suggesting that it has better things to spend the money on.

As for mass-relocations: This is probably a good thing. Katrina has shown that new orleans is not a favorable location for a city designed the way it was. It was simply a matter of time before this happened anyway - as everyone has said. Cities grow and shrink throughout history, and risk of a major natural disaster is a very good reason to relocate a city. Other cities will have no trouble handling the costs of new residents because they will become tax-paying citizens. Their new taxes will pay for their new services. Now, to the extent that those people manage to obtain city services without paying taxes - well, that's the price you pay for dabbling in socialism. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Courts do not make law, so respecting bad precedent does not a law make. The Constitution does not authorize the redistribution of wealth to rebuild damaged or destroyed homes and businesses.

Now, as a Christian, I think this is an area where the church should lead the way. The Federal government is bound by the Constitution not to delve into this matter, but the church absolutely should be doing what it can to help people clean up and rebuild.

I'm not at all opposed to helping people rebuild, but the fact of the matter is that this is not an area where the government has the responsibility or the authority to get involved.

Now, about the Iraq war. Does calling it an "operation" and not a war somehow allow Congress to step around the law? All of those other military actions you spoke of were illegal as well. Congress must declare any wars or they are illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Churches have been doing quite a bit for the gulf coast area. My church took special contributions both monetarily and with used items. That's fine, but I just think it's a waste of government money to rebuid an area we cannot protect! New Orelans continues to sink below sea level. Katrina made Camile look like a passing shower. If we rebuild New Orleans, one day we will say Katrina was nothing. That said, there are area's around NO that are above sea level; Why not rebuild outside the central core and avoid this again in 30 years. "Those who do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kheldane, I completely agree! RJ and rtb, I totally agree about the churches. The more people get off their rears and actually do something themselves, instead of dumping the responsibility on their fellow tax payers, the better off we will be. It's hardly a sacrifice and certainly not virtuous to steal from your neighbor and give it to another all in the name of social welfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed.

I think the new exit on 24 that is just down from highway 96 is a more industrial exit that will take truckers to the industrial parks over by the jail, no?

Lexy, the one you're thinking about is the New Salem Hwy proposed interchange that should be built in the next few years

RJ, as for the funding source, most projects are funded by TDOT in the form of federal tax dollars (but we all pay federal taxes). The aesthetics are paid for with local monies (city/county), Murfreesboro in this case.

Did you know that when I-24 was originally designed, Murfreesboro was to have 5 interchanges. But city leaders were opposed to the thought of large volumes of traffic using the interstate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife's Presbyterian church in Atlanta has sent a contingent of 15 people to the MS coast twice since October... and I learned last night that they're getting volunteers for another trip in May. They've already planned for another one in October.

"He who looks to government for compassion is a fool."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed.

I think the new exit on 24 that is just down from highway 96 is a more industrial exit that will take truckers to the industrial parks over by the jail, no?

I think you are talking about either New Salem (highway 99) exit which is now under construction or Joe B. Jackson parkway. New Salem is supposed to be MTSU's new entrance and will create further development along Rutherford Boulevard and South Church Street. Joe B Jackson Parkway or exit 84 will be industrious/residential with large Lavergne-like warehouses and subdivisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Gateway area isn't big enough to require mass transit. It has a very small geographic footprint, relatively speaking. All of those other things you mentioned I would be in favor of seeing though. However, even as it stands I think the Gateway is a good thing for the city.

Sweet!

Murfreesboro is large enough to receive mass transit and will initiate such this fall according to the local news, http://www.apta.com/passenger_transport/th...ek/060213_6.cfm, however I do agree that while the Gateway area is great for Murfreesboro, the urban factor is lacking. Big box stores that sit far back from the street, disconnect from historic downtown, pour out onto major thouroughfares, lack of crosswalk signals for pedestrians (this is a problem in more than just the Gateway area), and a lack of parking garages do not implement urban design and this should have been corrected before the first brick was laid. LA TN, that is some interesting information to know that Murfreesboro was supposed to have 5 interchanges. In retrospect, I think that if Murfreesboro had 5 interchanges already we would be put somewhere in between Clarksville and Chattanooga right now as far as devlopment and population are concerned. But the way the current growth trends go it won't be too much longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you know that when I-24 was originally designed, Murfreesboro was to have 5 interchanges. But city leaders were opposed to the thought of large volumes of traffic using the interstate.

It's amazing how priorities change over the years.

Murfreesboro is large enough to receive mass transit...

I agree. My point was that the Gateway itself is not large enough to require its own self contained mass transit system. That was what I was responding to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.