LincolnKennedy

^You can easily do a little research to find out that most of direct job creating portions of the stimulus (meaning the part that doesn't include tax cuts or direct aid to states or the unemployed) hasn't even funded yet.

^Mostly just don't need all this capacity.

It seems like the right-of-way along the south side of Mehring Way still exists and seems like it would work, if one didn't want to take it through the RCC and Pete Rose Way/lower 2nd Street. Does 'temporal separation' simply mean running the freight and passenger at different times?

It doesn't matter what they charge, I'm still going to ride it.

That's quite a nice paying job, and also some nice COAST ammo. I bet there's a great pension too. Given that the job is described as "managing all aspects of the development and implementation of a Cincinnati streetcar transit system" I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that this job will cease to exist after 'implementation'. I suspect that this salary and whatever benefits are included represent a part of the previously listed total projected cost of the project. Has COAST had any legislative successes on their signature issues since the defeat of the County Jail tax in 2006? I don't remember what they were pushing in 2007 but their principal issues in 2008 and 2009 weren't adding language to the Charter to prevent red-light cameras or the sale of the Water Works, they were proportional representation and Yes on 9, both of which failed by considerable margins. Their record on issues they are actually pushing is pretty dismal.

I'm pretty sure this is right, and Chabot has been opposed to every rail proposal in the City. As far as him 'bringing home the bacon' on a specific project, I'm almost certain he voted against federal funds to help build the Central Riverfront Park that is currently under construction, whereas Schmidt did vote for it, so there's at least one example of him not doing it. I wouldn't be so sure. The win difference between Driehaus' run in 2008 and Cranley's unsuccessful run in 2006 (both Democratic years) was largely made up of voters outside of the City, from what I've been told. I'm not too sure if health care 'did him in either'. If you're assuming a voter who votes according to the issues, I find it hard to imagine that there are many voters who liked the idea of health care refom enough to support Driehaus in 2008, but changed there mind over the course of a year. Maybe they are out there, but I doubt it. Also, I'm curious who the voter is who votes for Driehaus over the incumbent Chabot in 2008, and two years later decides to go back to Chabot in a rematch, and if they exist in statistically significant numbers. And given that Chabot took the seat [which was held by a Democrat since 1983] in 1994, which was a Republican year, I don't think the argument that Driehaus won soley because it was a Presidential year holds as much water as people imply. I'd say that the situation is much more fluid.

^^My original statement wasn't terribly clear. I wasn't commenting with the intention of badgering any particular voter or their opinion. I was deriding the news story and the reporting that gives no information about the Governor's race outside of the frame of one voters thoughts, and how awful and socially pointless this type of reporting is. But I guess if we didn't have these types of stories democracy would cease to function.

I'm not sure why this invalidates the assumption that she votes in a partisan manner. She says she's not going to vote for Strickland in July, who knows what she'll do in November. I'm impressed that she got the DDN to write a whole story about her (potentially) idiosyncratic voting habits. But that article is a perfect example of how vapid most reporting on political races are. It's not persuasive. Her reasons for opposing Strickland are irrational. While neither candidate had the means to keep GM from moving jobs and NCR from leaving the Dayton area (and it's doubtful that we would want them to have such authority), Kasich worked for a firm whose irresponsible business practices contributed to the present recession and unemployment! Kasich's firm no longer exists, yet the money said firm extracted from the economy and paid out to its employees remains with Kasich, despite performance so bad that the firm has been dissolved. It would be absurd to blame Kasich for these events, since he wasn't in charge of them, yet likewise the Governor of Ohio doesn't get to decide that Dayton is a better location than Atlanta for NCR, etc. I suppose the DDN could have run a story that contained numbers from several good polls, described the history of where various Governors were at this time in these conditions in Ohio's history, and what that might tell us about the current race, and discussed their respective fundraising levels. Instead we have a human interest story about the idiosyncratic views of one voter. No wonder newspapers are a dying business.

^She wants to look over the whole roster of candidates? Has she ever voted in this country before? I can't wait for more stories about people who describe themselves as independents but vote as as partisans. Oh wait, that's every story about the independent voter.

The only street that seems at a cursory glance to be gradual enough to take accomodate a Streetcar up from Central Parkway in that area is Lowell, which doesn't actually connect to CP but dead ends where the Frisch's is. But obviously that is a silly way to get to downtown, and doesn't serve the University well either.

^I was just funning you.

^I don't want to cite WWII. I've repeatedly cited the example of eighteenth century Britain as the basis for effective debt spending. I've also repeatedly cited this book: http://www.amazon.com/Sinews-Power-Money-English-1688-1783/dp/0674809300/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279947686&sr=8-1

How much time did you spend at Flanagan's Landing during grade school? Because I was in Caddy's like it was my job.

First off, can we agree to drop the references to Greece as a real scenario for comparison to the U.S.? If you really think it is valid, fine, but it seems me as being silly to equate a country with 12 million people that doesn't even have control over its own currency presents a similar possible outcome for the U.S. Japan at least seems to be a better country to compare to a stark future for the U.S. For you, the goal is balanced budgets and reduced spending. On the federal side, I'm more concerned with reducing unemployment. I'd rather run a temporary deficit to increase aggregate demand to reduce unemployment. I don't have a problem with the federal government using their ability to borrow at cheap rates to subsidize the work that the state and local governments do. It certainly isn't the fault of a kid in school or university right now that the states are receiving less revenue, so it seems pretty silly possibly to reduce the quality of their education right now when we don't have to. There is an opportunity cost associated with abruptly stopping the education system in the U.S. no matter how much one might dislike it structurally, particularly when people are leaving private schools for the public system due to reduced or lost income brought upon by the economic crisis. I don't really care who gets the blame for deficit spending, Republicans or Democrats, so long as it is assigned to the policies that caused it and the politicians who pushed those policies. You forget, I'm not the one who is arguing that balanced budgets are primary priority therefore, I don't find it to be shameful to have responsibility for them. If you do feel that deficits are Public Enemy Number 1, then it seems to me that you should want those responsible to be notorious. But whatever. I have no idea what level would be alarming or not. However high deficit spending has certainly occured plenty of times in the past under circumstances far more desperate than those we are facing now.

How exactly does this make the private sector pain worse, if the private sector is continuing to lend money to the federal government at absurdly cheap rates. Doesn't a lack of demand smother entrepreneurship and investment? Why invest in something when no one is going to buy your product? A lot of companies made some pretty fantastic profits this year, but they aren't making large-scale investments because they don't forsee and increase in demand anytime soon. If you look at small business surveys you see that the number one concern of small businesses is sales, whereas the concerns they have for taxes has remained relatively consistent: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/the-problem-tax-fears-and-bad-sales.png I suspect they'll make cuts rather than raise taxes. Maybe, and people who want to buy U.S. Treasuries. I'm not sure if one is able to specifically identify which part of the debt belongs to which line item of government expenditure, so I'll answer this one with: it will be paid off and rolled over indefinitely and the bill will be price + interest payments on debt when the money was allocated. The above graph from the National Federation of Independent Businesses says that presently it is Sales that are their overwhelming concern. It doesn't say anything about their concerns about government debt, and their concerns about taxes have remained relatively constant over time. But even if there is a low level of trust from the bulk of the public regarding government debt, clearly that isn't so with the purchasers of government debt? They are trusting enough to pay precious little for it. I don't see how you can honestly think that you can curb salaries and benefits at the same time. If you are going to curb benefits you'll have to increase salaries to attract workers. It's clear your opinion is that there should be less government workers regardless of function, but even if you as Grammarye Rex could impose your ideal number of government workers and drastically reduce pensions how you could reduce salaries as well.

I feel vindicated by your math skills.

I'm not sure why we are supposed to consider the stoking of demand through government expenditure a failure if the money has actually funneled its way to the economy, given that less than half of the contracts grants and loans money has even been paid out. Since they are mostly funneling that money through state governments its possible (I don't know) that it still hasn't reached its intended end. But if we are to view it as a failure, it seems more of a failure of tax benefits as stimulus since most of those have paid out: http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx http://www.recovery.gov/pages/textview.aspx?List=%7BEB595CCA%2DD93F%2D48F4%2DAF96%2D11E2D41DE73D%7D&xsl=Charts/FundingOverviewChartTextView.xsl

^Your time frame seems to be one year to me. Shouldn't it extend to June 2012? I'm don't really understand why the bet should evaporate given a change in policy in Britain, since that seems to me a failure of your advocated policy, though I would be willing to allow for a dissolution if the governing coalition broke up. But I suppose I would be willing to grant that change in the terms if you allow that the bet is off if the Obama administration doesn't engage in any more stimulative policy during the agreed upon time-period, and furthermore would not consider extention of unemployment benefits and the like as stimulus but rather relief.

^Now I am beginning to suspect that you actually enjoy our little chats as much as I have. But why did you abruptly end the last topic of discussion only to start up again over here? Consider that question as me begging you for an answer. Where are you getting this from? Sure. Growth starting when and ending when? Since we're both gentlemen, shall we say a dollar, a la Mortimer and Randolph?

^The General Motors and Chrysler went through bankruptcy because they were unable to get the short term operating loans that they rely on to make payroll and other things over their massive operations because the banking system shut down. Ford didn't because their CEO Alan Mullaly mortgaged the entire company: "In 2006, Mulally led the effort for Ford to borrow US$23.6 billion by mortgaging all of Ford's assets. Mulally said that he intended to use the money to finance a major overhaul and provide “a cushion to protect for a recession or other unexpected event." The idea that we should just let a crisis continue because for reasons of punishment when we have the capability to respond and fix it is an idea that generally finds precious few adherents. People in the U.S. expect their government to be responsive, since it is of, by and for the people. I'll take history, culture and the law over blind faith in the market. As Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. dissented in Lochner v. New York, "The case is decided upon an economic theory that a large part of the country does not entertain." http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0198_0045_ZD1.html

The growth of Texas, Florida, Arizona and New Mexico seem pretty clear, albeit for different factors. I'm somewhat surprised there are more people moving to South Carolina, Tennessee and Alabama, and that Georgia isn't on that list. I'm not sure if people in Ohio and the Midwest would necessarily want to trade places with folks who move to those states, however. The place that really seems interesting to me, and holds the best prospect for lessons that Ohio and the Midwest could implement is North Carolina. The state really seems to have made a place for themselves that doesn't have anything particular to do with natural geography or resources or sprawl from a major metro in another state. They seem to have done a good job of attracting businesses to Charlotte and investing in their university system to further job growth. I think that we can't forget that the 'greenfield' model of development that has propelled growth in the suburbs holds equally true for the above states as well. I'm curious if there would be a way for the state to incorporate a Constitutional amendment that forbids the state government or any of its subsidiaries (municipalities of special bodies such as school districts) from offering defined-benefit pension plans. Maybe as a corollarly to balanced budget requirements that the states and municipalities have? Because now would be the best time to pass something of that nature, since you've got a Republican majority state Supreme Court and Republican majority U.S. Supreme Court. If they did move to defined contribution pensions you'd probably end up increasing the cost of these workers, but then you'd be paying for what you were using when you were using it rather than allowing it to become some budgetary ticking time bomb.

^You really do assume a lot about my behavior. Your claim that you can bet you've voted in a more bipartisan manner than I have, as if we were talking about that rather than specific policy, is completely absurd. I'm sorry you felt like taking your toys and going home. It's been fun.

Delaware is a classic example of a state that benefits disproportionally from the federal government. Companies can do business in any state but are not incorporated federally. Drive on I-95 and see how much you extra you have to pay simply because the feds routed that highway through that state. New Hampshire is a good example of your case but I'd be surprised if it is anything but migration from the greater Boston area, although I recognize that in your world, geography is irrelevant. This example is more similar to the growth of the Inland Empire in California more than anything else. There is certainly a difference in taxation between Vermont and New Hampshire, yet both gained population over the past decade. Shouldn't NH be draining Vermont of people? Do you think that these Jim Crow states would be performing as well economically as some of them are if they still had those Jim Crow laws? Those improvements to personal liberty were imposed upon those unwilling states by the federal government, not because the officials in those states wanted those laws changed. Right, I was putting Colorado, along with Washington and Oregon, under the federal expenditure only heading, as opposed to Texas, which I would put under both. Nice pickup. From a previous post of yours in the Obama Presidency thread: The sentence in bold is what I was referring to when I described your support for education as being purely rhetorical. Where is the evidence, in any state or any other country, that moving to a privatized system of education is going to fufill the goal of universal education? The people of the nation expect a system of universal education. It's fine if you don't like it, but declaring after the fact implementation that your 'solutions' to present day concerns won't work in the same conditions means that they don't work. There you go again with your Bolshevik-style ad hominem attacks. It's like listening to Zinoviev at the Twelfth Party Congress. Why should one dismiss an article in Education Week as being 'inherently biases' but believe that something from the Manhattan Institute isn't? Given that the Manhattan Institute says that they advocate 'market-oriented policies', and that vouchers are presented as market-oriented policies, then why don't they have just as much self-interest in promoting a certain viewpoint as Education Week? But the public schools don't have and have never had a monopoly, at any level of education. There's been parochial and non-parochial private schools since before the Republic. New Orleans has been the single biggest testing ground for vouchers. If you want to ignore things that are happening there simply because the data doesn't fit in your pre-conceived graph, don't expect folks to pat you on the back about it. If you're over-responding, I'm equally over-responding. Are you sure you are using 'projecting' in the correct manner in this case?

^Agree absolutely. But this is a mistaken policy that has overwhelming bi-partisan support.

Feel free to read the articles other folks post: But people and businesses aren't necessarily moving to the states that impose the smallest tax burden. Also, there is the possibility that those states that are losing population are losing a certain segment of the population, retaining the high earners and low earners while losing the middle earners. Californias a particularly bad example because the people leaving it are engaging in the same behavior as the people shifting around within the state- moving to greenfield sites that are close to the major economic centers.