A Crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

[Duke{CLR}]

This is a good summary of whats going on here. I have read a lot about this and this article seems to hit several points that i think are important.

A 40-Year Wish List - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html)

[Rand{CLR}]

While some of the things the article points out are indeed questionable, others are not. Unless you have an issue with renewable energy sources, mass transit, and education spending?

They're looking at the wrong types of things to criticize with these. Operational issues with mass transit are QUITE different than the funding necessary to expand mass transit options, which gets more cars off the roads, helps curb urban sprawl, and reduces dependency on foreign oil, among many other benefits.

They harp on the provision that the education funds are not to be used for private school tuition. What's wrong with that? We should be addressing the public schools. If they weren't so fundamentally broken in so many ways, fewer people would flock to expensive private schools anyway.

Living just outside DC, I probably have a better view on spending for government facilities than most of you guys do, as I see first hand the deplorable state of say, the National Mall, and hear many discussions of how poor a front it places on the Capital of the Free World (TM). The fact that the WSJ doesn't seem to recognize that it would lead to job creation in the sense that that much money going to public facilities means you need a lot of construction workers is odd, but whatever. I can see how people would quibble with that (and the National Endowment of the Arts), but would argue that this country should not be just about the hard line return on investment. Rather, we need to consider other aspects of life and culture as well.

-Rand

[mapes]

+1

While some of the things the article points out are indeed questionable, others are not. Unless you have an issue with renewable energy sources, mass transit, and education spending?

They're looking at the wrong types of things to criticize with these. Operational issues with mass transit are QUITE different than the funding necessary to expand mass transit options, which gets more cars off the roads, helps curb urban sprawl, and reduces dependency on foreign oil, among many other benefits.

They harp on the provision that the education funds are not to be used for private school tuition. What's wrong with that? We should be addressing the public schools. If they weren't so fundamentally broken in so many ways, fewer people would flock to expensive private schools anyway.

Living just outside DC, I probably have a better view on spending for government facilities than most of you guys do, as I see first hand the deplorable state of say, the National Mall, and hear many discussions of how poor a front it places on the Capital of the Free World (TM). The fact that the WSJ doesn't seem to recognize that it would lead to job creation in the sense that that much money going to public facilities means you need a lot of construction workers is odd, but whatever. I can see how people would quibble with that (and the National Endowment of the Arts), but would argue that this country should not be just about the hard line return on investment. Rather, we need to consider other aspects of life and culture as well.

-Rand

[Trooper110]

+2

[Duke{CLR}]

This $825 billion program is being sold to fix the economy when it just looks like they are using it has an excuse to spend a huge amount of money that will take generations to repay. There things on there that may be worthy causes but they shouldn't be sold and a cure for the economic problems we are facing. The WSJ is looking at it from a business standpoint and it's the businesses that will really make thing better in the long run not a bloated government.

[Hammy]

They're looking at the wrong types of things to criticize with these. Operational issues with mass transit are QUITE different than the funding necessary to expand mass transit options, which gets more cars off the roads, helps curb urban sprawl, and reduces dependency on foreign oil, among many other benefits.

They harp on the provision that the education funds are not to be used for private school tuition. What's wrong with that? We should be addressing the public schools. If they weren't so fundamentally broken in so many ways, fewer people would flock to expensive private schools anyway.

Living just outside DC, I probably have a better view on spending for government facilities than most of you guys do, as I see first hand the deplorable state of say, the National Mall, and hear many discussions of how poor a front it places on the Capital of the Free World (TM). The fact that the WSJ doesn't seem to recognize that it would lead to job creation in the sense that that much money going to public facilities means you need a lot of construction workers is odd, but whatever. I can see how people would quibble with that (and the National Endowment of the Arts), but would argue that this country should not be just about the hard line return on investment. Rather, we need to consider other aspects of life and culture as well.

-Rand


Does the building still work? Yes? Then why do we need to reface it?

In terms of jobs creation with Pub Transit- I have no interest in short improvements that create budgetary dependency. Public transit is not popular and even if you had a bus stop on every corner, people would still drive their cars unless gas was the same prices it were 6 months ago. After those projects are done, those local and state govs will request or require federal assistance on the basis that it was the Feds who placed that budget confinement in their backyard in the first place.



So the job creation and benefit are not there for me. I went to a private HS and a private college- I say "no funding assistance to said institutions."

You see, the unique culture and the requirements for the best education demand that rules of liberal education do not apply, and this would allow them to continue to blind accept based on merit, score, and academia rather than fulfill Asian, African American, Women, and etc rules. Guaranteeing the development of the best minds beside the best minds is important, and the sole purpose of a private institution. Government funding ruins that anyways with rules and requirements. It's not an elitism, it's factual performance based rewards- and I dont buy into the "inopportune" conversation - one of my pals grew up in one of the worst California neighborhoods, is African American, and had no father or mother.

And one last point- if you notice, the curbing of urban sprawl occured when the mortgage crises became a reality. And cars were also off the road a good 6 months of the year as well. And with that timeframe, our market dropped, consumption has dropped, and we are here today.

It's a curious situation, but I dont see many positives here in the suggestions being presented.

[Rand{CLR}]

And one last point- if you notice, the curbing of urban sprawl occured when the mortgage crises became a reality. And cars were also off the road a good 6 months of the year as well. And with that timeframe, our market dropped, consumption has dropped, and we are here today.

You probably don't want to get into an urban sprawl back and forth with me. I'm a planner/urban designer by day, have degrees in Architecture, History, and Community Planning, and more than likely know much more about this than all of you guys put together. :D

Very quickly though, sprawl doesn't just end in a period of time as short as six months. Things approved a year ago, if they secured their financing, are still under construction. And the pattern of American sprawl is a post-war phenomenon that has taken more than 55 years to get where it's at now. A recession doesn't stop it--look at the periods following every recession to date. Much more development took place after it.

By and large, cars weren't off the road so much as people began shifting which cars they drove. The high gas prices did drive some people to transit, but it drove more away from the guzzling SUV back to the family sedan that had just been sitting in the driveway. We'll need a sustained pattern of high gas prices to make a huge dent, combined with marketing of transit.

Transit WORKS in major cities. It is not as effective elsewhere, particularly where we need it--smaller cities, suburbs, and emerging "exurbs" where development has become concentrated during the last decade. It's as much a marketing campaign as anything else, as there is an unfortunate stigma associated with transit, especially buses. Another key element in the equation? Parking. If you provide ample free parking, you have much, much less incentive to use transit.

-Rand

[Duke{CLR}]

Howard Dean tried to start up a transit up here. What he didn't think of is that many of the people in the towns it would serve moved from big cities to get away from things like mass transit. It was such a bogus deal that it made a main stream show. I think it was called "Fleecing of America" or something like that.

The point of this thread was to point out that Obama's plan is not what is being sold. It isn't change and it isn't all that transparent.

[Rand{CLR}]

Transparency is one of the great difficulties of any government, regardless of level or who is in charge. When you have something of this nature, it's many thousands of pages of text that make sense to a few hundred people, and translating it for the common man is not easy.

I see it on a county level all the time. It's much worse when it's like this: a ram-rodded program. Leaving everyone's political leanings aside, I think we can all agree that this thing is moving insanely fast.

-Rand

[Duke{CLR}]

I think there is a quote from Obama about the speed of which the patriot act was passing and how concerned he was.

[RyeWhiskey]

The bailout money so far hasn't done squat. It has just prolonged the inevitable. Japan had a similiar problem years ago as China did. Their infusions of massive amounts of money didn't do anything either. There is something wrong with this bailout. It isn't just about jobs.

[mapes]

I think there is a quote from Obama about the speed of which the patriot act was passing and how concerned he was.


Excellent point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mapes]

The bailout money so far hasn't done squat. It has just prolonged the inevitable. Japan had a similiar problem years ago as China did. Their infusions of massive amounts of money didn't do anything either. There is something wrong with this bailout. It isn't just about jobs.

Well it is a little like trying to stop the flood with a tea cup but, the gotta try something.

[Dead...Again]

Highlights of the House Stimulus bill (http://wsbradio.com/blogs/jamie_dupree/2009/01/highlights-of-the-house-stimul.html)
Most of this stuff doesn't look like it would really stimulate the economy IMO. It looks to me like it is just a bunch of stuff the Democrats want to get passed, and they are using this as an excuse to push it through.

[Hammy]

You probably don't want to get into an urban sprawl back and forth with me. I'm a planner/urban designer by day, have degrees in Architecture, History, and Community Planning, and more than likely know much more about this than all of you guys put together. :D

Very quickly though, sprawl doesn't just end in a period of time as short as six months. Things approved a year ago, if they secured their financing, are still under construction. And the pattern of American sprawl is a post-war phenomenon that has taken more than 55 years to get where it's at now. A recession doesn't stop it--look at the periods following every recession to date. Much more development took place after it.

By and large, cars weren't off the road so much as people began shifting which cars they drove. The high gas prices did drive some people to transit, but it drove more away from the guzzling SUV back to the family sedan that had just been sitting in the driveway. We'll need a sustained pattern of high gas prices to make a huge dent, combined with marketing of transit.

Transit WORKS in major cities. It is not as effective elsewhere, particularly where we need it--smaller cities, suburbs, and emerging "exurbs" where development has become concentrated during the last decade. It's as much a marketing campaign as anything else, as there is an unfortunate stigma associated with transit, especially buses. Another key element in the equation? Parking. If you provide ample free parking, you have much, much less incentive to use transit.

-Rand

And from an architectural planning perspective those points are good.

From an economical standpoint, the more people drive, the more they visit stores, the more they buy and etc. Urban sprawl= more housing needs, which turns up the durable goods purchases, the people that need you Mr. Architecht to help them absorb the crawl space in a second floor addition, which generates more demand for things like wiring, switches and etc.

Then you need new carpet, then the landscaping needs to be updated....

Then you show it off, or entertain more frequently, so you throw parties- and etc.

Thats what I mean when I said it was curious that urban sprawl coming to a complete stop (at least here in California) also signaled a huge wave of market decline, waves of layoffs, and etc.

Consumption drives our economy- people arent consuming. There are huge tracts of half finished homes out here in the Sacramento Valley, and people just dont want them, people defaulted on what they owed after dropping in 100k in a deposit believing that they were going to get mortgage approvals- which leaves them not only in a housing bind- but also without that 100k they defaulted on. (thus the half finished homes)

From your point of view I understand, all I am saying is that Public Transit is not the solution because I agree with you. 20 major metropolitan areas would benefit from public transit and the rest of the US would be stagnating because it wouldnt be a good environment for it- thus wasted money.

[MR_MADHATTER]

Why do they have to spend so much a one time? Take one at a time and spread the cost out. If my taxes go up, that will be a broken promise. I know Democrats love to spend money but they are going on a binge with this list.

[RyeWhiskey]

It's just printed money. They are taking a gamble that monopoly money will fix it. This is going to make things worse and won't help anything. Short term=maybe, long-term=no.

[mapes]

Why do they have to spend so much a one time? Take one at a time and spread the cost out. If my taxes go up, that will be a broken promise. I know Democrats love to spend money but they are going on a binge with this list.


The Dems do like spending on social programs. However they tend to leave a budgetary surplus.....