Brutus_buckeye

I do not think anyone will argue for pure captialism as Adam Smith describes. That is untenable. I think most "compassionate conservatives" and libertarians even agree with some checks in the system to balance things out and help the poor. The minimum wage is not one of them, it is a pure arbitrary figure that only contributes to wage push and inflation, it is not a real wage. Social Security and even some forms of wel-fare could be argued to serve a better purpose of providing a safety net. I do not think anyone thinks monopolies should be unregulated and that they should return to the policies of the 19th century but, at the same time there does not need to be laws everytime someone gets taken advantage of either. The market can regulate itself in many of these cases in the long run.

^ No minimum wage. The minimum wage only creates wage inflation and contributes to the rising cost of goods and increased cost of labor. When the minimum wage goes up, it does little to increase the buying power of those making it because it contributes to wage push throughout the scale. It is a meaningless inefficient way to determine earnings but there are a number of bleeding heart politicians who know nothing about economics that think it is actually helping the poor

Supply and Demand can dictate what salaries they pay, then as times go well, discretionary income rises, othertimes it falls. We do not need an artificial prop to make sure people have a suitable income, the market establishes that.

I think The terms liberal and conservative have been hijacked by the media and the political parties and they are very broad in meaning. To interpret what cleveland is you will need to limit the definition in scope to what you feel liberalism is. This may be your arbitrary view of libralism but is it a starting point. For the purposes of the conversation it appears that the common description of "Liberal" is "Democrat" and "Conservative" meaning "Republican". In that sense, Cleveland is Liberal because they have a lot more people who vote democratic. However, if you look at the voters who are voting many of those democratic voters espouse many conservative social views and principles, and I would say that there are many Republican voters who espouse many liberal social views (Libertarians tend to vote more Republican but it could be argued that they espouse a liberal philosophy).

It may put Cadillac Ranch out of business. Hopefully the food will taste better

would love to see a small movie theater like the new Kenwood one or the neon in Dayton, not a chain like Rave or AMC (since they have one already at the levee

Agreed, "Government is a business. Business likes to create and grow from where it is and in this case, that's Columbus." Columbus has developed that critical mass of government jobs, which is a compelling reason to leave it in Cbus just like Wright Pat and P&G have developed a core competency in their respective cities. However, 1) Nothing is permanent, the government could close Wright Pat and move those jobs to another base out of state, P&G could be bought out and move those jobs from Cincy (Just like they moved all the executive jobs at Gillette out of Boston). 2) They are state jobs and represent the entire state of Ohio and their citizens. The city of Columbus does not deserve any extra advantage because it is the capital over the other cities. 3) If it is the most efficient thing, then of course you keep it inCBuS, but with today's economy, and techology some greater efficiencies may be realized by moving some of those positions to say Dayton or Toledo.

The general public doesnt really understand the difference between a capital budget and operating budget, or they just dont care. In their mind, taxpayer money is taxpayer money. THe police and fire union leaders are trying to stir up the populist anger.

They showed it lit up on the news at 11 last night

Or could it be worth weakening a stronger city like columbus mainly to prop up the struggling cities like Dayton, Toledo, Youngstown, Akron. Not necessarily for this but hey could be a way to help out the ones in more dire straight while Columbus would suffer short term, its economy could be in better position to withstand and recover.

While the other cities have offices such as BWC field offices and such, the agency is based in Columbus. I was looking at relocating the center of operations. Your right, it would have a harmful effect on columbus in the short term but would Columbus be better off in the longer term if it were not so reliant on the government offices. (The labor could be better deployed to more efficient ventures) Interesting idea, but C-Bus has become reliant on those state employees and shuffling the deck is not going to make a significant enough impact in the other two C's or some of the mid-size cities to make it worth it.... IMHO. The benefit to Cincy and Cleveland would not outweigh the harm to Columbus.

Do you think some of the struggling cities such as Dayton, Toledo and Cleveland would benefit if the state agencies that are all based in Columbus spread out to all the cities in the state. THere is nothing that says they all have to be based in the capital city and in todays economy, techonology will allow them to be spread out more than ever. This would help some of the other cities by spreading out state jobs and even help columbus because it would diversify the economy and they would not be as reliant on state employees for their economy. In IL, many state agencies are based in Chicago as opposed to Springfield. Same with New York. Maybe we can move the Secretary of State to Cincinnati, Attorney General to Cleveland and Bureau of Workers Comp to Dayton, etc.

maybe if gasoline goes to $5 a gallon there will be more converts.

Actually, the disconnect exists between Ohio and the rest of the civilized world. Ohio isn't developing 3C rail ANY DIFFERENTLY than any other introductory train services elsewhere in the U.S. Indeed Ohio is imitating how other successful train services were introduced -- through evolution from modest beginnings. While other states used their own state-taxpayer funds, Ohio has available to it a no-match federal grant to catch up to other states. If we fumble this, we will never have such an opportunity to catch up again. It's time that critics stopped, listened and learned about this "building-block" approach that other states have undertaken to evolve toward high-speed rail. Why the disconnect exists is not relevant. The point is, there is a disconnect and the current method of promotion is not working for the 3-C project. but instead of taking a different approach, rail advocates are continually beating the same drum...and when regular folks don't get it, they're blasted for being ignorant or not understanding "this is how it's done". Reminds me of that guy in Office Space screaming at the 2 Bob's "I'M A PEOPLE PERSON. I DEAL WELL WITH PEOPLE." Look, I support rail and this project. But the fact remains, even when I try to talk to ALL (not most, or some, but all) of my friends about this they all say the same thing "why wouldn't I just drive?" The only remotely successful argument I've made is for my Cleveland friends, getting a head start on tailgating when going to Buckeye games Well said

Again, both Ken and noozer, I was not trying to attach you only disagree that I do not think you have sold your argument very well. you do not need to call me an idiot (noozer) for not agreeing with you. 1) Ken, when I said, 70% was against it, I had not looked a the most rencent data. There have been a number of polls with varying degrees of people who have been for or against the project. Ultimately, most Ohioans are against the 3-C as it has currently been proposed. Now Ken, you go and further prove my point when you quote that 80% are in favor of some sort of passenger rail service in Ohio. All I was trying to say is that there is a fall off between the people that "support rail" and those for the 3C plan. This is where they need to be sold on the project. Something I think your group could do better. As far as my logic being laughable noozer, if that were the case, the train would already be under construction. It appears there is a disconnect between you and the rest of Ohio, all I was trying to say is re-frame your argument, listen to the de-tractors and come up with a better way to sell the train.

The argument that people will trade their cars in for the chance to relax on a train to go between the 3 cities is not working, time to give it up!! For those without a car who need to get to a place, there are options, its call Greyhound, people use that all the time. I do not mean to sound short but clearly, you guys are not selling your argument for passenger rail. When 70% of the people come out against it, you clearly have a preception problem. Calling people ignorant or fools if they disagree with you will not solve your problem but only make you be the bigger fool. Why not frame the argument differently. For example, Instead of framing it as a choice between trains and cars (which right now is a losing argument) frame it in more of a regional perspective such as a choice between planes and trains. What is the key component of both? With trains and planes, both take off from a fixed station and arrive at a fixed station. People drive because they want that independence in travel. People fly because they want to get someone quicker than driving so they give up the independence of the car. Well, with secruity measures on planes now, and the greater inconveinence it has become to fly (regionally), it makes rail more attractive. for me, framing the argument of taking the train to Cleveland as opposed to a cramped regional jet gets some traction. Not sure if it would work, but hey, cant hurt your preception problem.

Looks like the problem was more to do with the voter than the machine. It seems like he was able to figure it out though so I dont see why it is an issue.

Easy for you to say. You are not the guy who had his balls crushed at Abu Ghraib. Dude, I never knew that about you, but that does explain a lot. (only kidding of course)

Last night was a great night to be from Ohio

yay!!

I kinda like how Governor Kaisch sounds

I like the concept. For a casino, it has the most access to the streets I have ever seen with restaurants and shops and stuff. Most casionos I have been to are fortresses with the main entrance from an ugly parking garage or far removed from the street that it sucks the life out of the street. I think there is some hope that this may compliment the neighborhood.

Maybe need to change the title to this thread to Governor Kaisch since it is starting to appear inevitible now

It appears that the dems have already written Fisher off in this one.

What a jacka$$. First of all he is going to lose, second, there is such a thiing as private property rights. He needs to move into reality and let the project move forward.