U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado > Colorado Springs
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-10-2010, 04:03 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
2,221 posts, read 4,654,594 times
Reputation: 1682

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
I find it interesting that someone who is so against growth and the automobile is also against affordable transportation so there is a viable option to the car.

I will be honest it does not affect me as I can afford my own car and the gas it takes to run it but what do we tell the people who can not? Sorry you have to walk everywhere you want and need to go including your job and if that is not a option then tell them not to work and be as productive as they can to society? Just asking.
We tell people that they have to pay for the services they use. If you can't afford transportation to work, then move closer, or go somewhere else where you can live closer to your job. The food you eat, the roof over your head, your next pack of cigarettes and a six-pack, and a ride across town aren't anyone's responsibility but your own.

There should be incentive to work as a condition of eating. In that case if walking is the only way to get to work, then walking is also the only way to get to eat. Problem solved.

I walked and biked most of my way through the undergraduate years in university, and at one point lived almost 5 miles from the campus. If the weather was particularly nasty, I called a cab that day or left a couple hours early to ride with a neighbor. But I didn't sit around and b**ch because somebody else wouldn't foot the bill so that I could sit on my a** and get a free ride to school/work.

Personally, I hope that the lack of taxpayer-funded cheap transportation here will incentivize those with the freeloader mindset to move up to Boulder or Denver or elsewhere where cosmopolitan thinkers with swelling tax burdens can keep them in the style in which they have become accustomed and believe themselves to be entitled.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-10-2010, 04:17 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,102 posts, read 20,368,837 times
Reputation: 4132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob from down south View Post
We tell people that they have to pay for the services they use. If you can't afford transportation to work, then move closer, or go somewhere else where you can live closer to your job. The food you eat, the roof over your head, your next pack of cigarettes and a six-pack, and a ride across town aren't anyone else's responsibility but your own.

There should be incentive to work as a condition of eating. In that case if walking is the only way to get to work, then walking is also the only way to get to eat. Problem solved.

I walked and biked most of my way through the undergraduate years in university, and at one point lived almost 5 miles from the campus. If the weather was particularly nasty, I called a cab that day or left a couple hours early to ride with a neighbor. But I didn't sit around and b**ch because somebody else wouldn't foot the bill so that I could sit on my a** and get a free ride to school/work.

Personally, I hope that the lack of taxpayer-funded cheap transportation here will incentivize those with the freeloader mindset to move up to Boulder or Denver or elsewhere where cosmopolitan thinkers with swelling tax burdens can keep them in the style in which they have become accustomed and believe themselves to be entitled.
That seems kind of insensitive to me.

Colorado Springs is not exactly the easiest city to get around in with a car let alone without. Its nearly impossible to live by work, school, shopping etc. It was nice that you were able to do that when you were young and healthy but what about people not so young and/or healthy or have young kids? And to insult them by calling them "freeloaders" when you do not know their situation is insulting to everyone who is doing the best they can on the little they make.

I will never understand the Springs mentality, all for me and forget the rest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2010, 04:44 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
2,221 posts, read 4,654,594 times
Reputation: 1682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
That seems kind of insensitive to me.

Colorado Springs is not exactly the easiest city to get around in with a car let alone without. Its nearly impossible to live by work, school, shopping etc. It was nice that you were able to do that when you were young and healthy but what about people not so young and/or healthy or have young kids? And to insult them by calling them "freeloaders" when you do not know their situation is insulting to everyone who is doing the best they can on the little they make.

There is nothing in the US Constitution that makes it a right for people to be dealt with sensitively. Especially when they have their hands out. In fact, a reading of that seminal document leads one to recognize that the founding fathers believed self-reliance and hard work are the way to happiness, not by receiving life's necessities free or at reduced cost from a welfare state.

Colorado Springs is EXTREMELY easy to get around in. I only average about 20 miles a week on my car, most of that for convenience. If you work at Ft Carson and choose to live in Briargate, that's not a problem with Colorado Springs. It's a lack of personal map-reading and/or math skills.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
I will never understand the Springs mentality, all for me and forget the rest.
No, that's the Wall Street mentality.

Here it's not "all for me." How 'bout this: "what I work to earn is for me and mine. Feel free to go work and earn your own for you and yours. There's enough there to be earned for all of us who care to work." Big difference.

Last edited by Bob from down south; 01-10-2010 at 04:56 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2010, 04:59 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,102 posts, read 20,368,837 times
Reputation: 4132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob from down south View Post
There is nothing in the US Constitution that makes it a right for people to be dealt with sensitively. Especially when they have their hands out. In fact, a reading of that seminal document leads one to recognize that the founding fathers believed self-reliance and hard work are the way to happiness, not by receiving life's necessities free or at reduced cost from a welfare state.

Colorado Springs is EXTREMELY easy to get around in. I only average about 20 miles a week on my car, most of that for convenience. If you work at Ft Carson and choose to live in Briargate, that's not a problem with Colorado Springs. It's a lack of personal map-reading and/or math skills.



No, that's the Wall Street mentality.

Here it's not "all for me." How 'bout this: "what I work to earn is for me and mine. Feel free to go work and earn your own for you and yours." Big difference.
You are absolutely right, the constitution does not say anyone needs to be sensitive to the people less fortunate then you are and if you choose not to be that is your right. That being said it is, also, my right not to understand that.

It is, also, your opinion that the Springs is easy to get around in. I happen to have a different opinion and think mass transit is something that thousands of people use daily to help them get around. Not to abuse the system but to do what we are all doing, the best we can to live the best life we can.

It's hard to say what the founding fathers wanted when it comes to many of the modern conveniences we have today as life in the 1700's was much different then it is today in 2010. There was no need for much in the way of public transportation as everyone walked. All we can do is just make educated guesses and that is why everyone's opinion is different.

LOL that is Wall Street Mentality and the Springs. I guess that town has more in common with Wall Street then most people realize. I know you won't find it much in Pueblo as we have a completely different culture that is more based around Main Street. That being said they even have one of the worlds best Mass Transit systems so even they do not mind paying for mass transit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2010, 06:00 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
2,221 posts, read 4,654,594 times
Reputation: 1682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
You are absolutely right, the constitution does not say anyone needs to be sensitive to the people less fortunate then you are and if you choose not to be that is your right. That being said it is, also, my right not to understand that.
I would argue that a person that has their expenses paid for by others is *more* fortunate than I am.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
It is, also, your opinion that the Springs is easy to get around in. I happen to have a different opinion and think mass transit is something that thousands of people use daily to help them get around. Not to abuse the system but to do what we are all doing, the best we can to live the best life we can.
I live here. You...don't. I get around this town every day. You...DON'T.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
It's hard to say what the founding fathers wanted when it comes to many of the modern conveniences we have today as life in the 1700's was much different then it is today in 2010. There was no need for much in the way of public transportation as everyone walked. All we can do is just make educated guesses and that is why everyone's opinion is different.
No, actually, it's not hard at all to understand what the founding fathers had to say. The idea of succeeding through hard work and self-reliance is not negated by modern conveniences. Hard work and self-reliance make success possible even when things are inconvenient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
I know you won't find it much in Pueblo as we have a completely different culture that is more based around Main Street. That being said they even have one of the worlds best Mass Transit systems so even they do not mind paying for mass transit.
Sorry, sport, but I've been to your depressed and dirty little brown town, and it's not the thriving Megalopolis you delude yourself into seeing.

And if people who want bus service here actually bellied up to the bar and paid for the bus service they say they want, this'd be a different discussion entirely. I don't have a problem with a public transportation system...I DO have a problem with one that plans to lose money by not charging enough in fares to pay its bills.

But I have a solution. I think all these less fortunate people you keep braying about should move to Pueblo. That way you get that big population bump you dream about...so what if they live in section 8 housing and live off your taxes? I'm sure you'll be happy to pay their way for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2010, 06:09 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,102 posts, read 20,368,837 times
Reputation: 4132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob from down south View Post
I would argue that a person that has their expenses paid for by others is *more* fortunate than I am.


You can make that argument but that does not mean its true. Most people in the Springs use mass transit because they have to not because they choose to.

I live here. You...don't. I get around this town every day. You...DON'T.




No, actually, it's not hard at all to understand what the founding fathers had to say. The idea of succeeding through hard work and self-reliance is not negated by modern conveniences. Hard work and self-reliance make success possible even when things are inconvenient.


Sorry, sport, but I've been to your depressed and dirty little brown town, and it's not the thriving Megalopolis you delude yourself into seeing.

And if people who want bus service here actually bellied up to the bar and paid for the bus service they say they want, this'd be a different discussion entirely. I don't have a problem with a public transportation system...I DO have a problem with one that plans to lose money by not charging enough in fares to pay its bills.

But I have a solution. I think all these less fortunate people you keep braying about should move to Pueblo. That way you get that big population bump you dream about...so what if they live in section 8 housing and live off your taxes? I'm sure you'll be happy to pay their way for them.
I might not live in Springs but I do not live in a bubble so I have driven around that city plenty and know it more then most of its residents.

In really it is hard to know what our founding fathers wanted as we can not speak to them but that is a topic for a different thread anyway.

I guess when all else fails make fun of Pueblo. But that being said I welcome most anyone who wants to move here and will not check to see how much they make first.

Like I said if the Springs does not want to have decent mass transit it is their choice, I just will never understand it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2010, 08:23 PM
 
20,326 posts, read 37,832,470 times
Reputation: 18113
Hmmmm . . . I don't recall in words in the Constitution about Hard Work and Self Reliance. These are more of our national mythology. Untold numbers of farmers, homesteaders and railroads got millions of acres of land for FREE in those government giveaways known as the Land Rush or the Land Grant Railroads. Oh yeah, lots of hard work there, you show up, you get land for free. Oops, another stinking welfare program for the have-nots.

I do recall words about "promote the general Welfare", kind of like spending money on public schools (even though 16% of couples choose to remain child-free yet pay their taxes for that anyway) or for bus/transit systems for cities, which every city has as part of basic and essential city services. Every city has parks, but parks aren't mentioned in the Constitution. Every city has libraries, but libraries aren't mentioned in the Constitution. Bus service is equally as much "for the public good" as are schools, libraries, parks, and much more. Every city has a Fire Dept, but FD's aren't mentioned in the Constitution. If we're going to make users of public services pay fully for them, and if we're going to exempt from paying all those who don't use them, then I want one hell of a refund from every jurisdiction in the nation where I've lived and supported public schools. I don't see public schools mentioned in the Constitution either. Arguing that ONLY the users of a bus system should pay the full cost of the bus system does not stand up to the logic that has prevailed in this nation for generations; it's merely the logic of "I got mine, you can go to hell." Okay, so times are tight right now, that doesn't mean we throw out doing things for the public good.

When I hear anyone trying to connect constitutionality to one of today's issues, that usually throws the entire case into the dumper for me, like the way Doug Bruce tries to tie his anti-tax grandstanding back to some constitutional principal. Gimme a break.

A lot of people don't like the USOC deal and they don't care who they hurt with their backlash. Why don't they put their money where their mouth is and recall the idiot mayor. Oh wait, he's of our party, silly me, never mind, is there someone else we can screw.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.

Last edited by Mike from back east; 01-10-2010 at 10:49 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2010, 11:35 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
2,221 posts, read 4,654,594 times
Reputation: 1682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
Hmmmm . . . I don't recall in words in the Constitution about Hard Work and Self Reliance. These are more of our national mythology. Untold numbers of farmers, homesteaders and railroads got millions of acres of land for FREE in those government giveaways known as the Land Rush or the Land Grant Railroads. Oh yeah, lots of hard work there, you show up, you get land for free. Oops, another stinking welfare program for the have-nots.
There ain't no such thing as free land. The more use and value imputed to it, the higher the taxes upon it become. The lands "given" to the homesteaders have been generating tax revenue for years numbering in the hundreds. If the "owner" stops paying those taxes, it reverts to the government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
I do recall words about "promote the general Welfare"
"Welfare" as used in the Constitution, doesn't include public assistance or programs to benefit the poor. See
The Constitutional Dictionary - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
kind of like spending money on public schools (even though 16% of couples choose to remain child-free yet pay their taxes for that anyway)
Everyone reaps the benefits of an educated populace. And most of those childless couples had their education paid for by their predecessors, so they bear some obligation to repay society as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
or for bus/transit systems for cities, which every city has as part of basic and essential city services.
First, many cities do not have bus transportation. And many of the ones that do don't service the entire city, so the benefits are available to some citizens who frequent the areas served, but others are not availed of that service. That's not for "the common good." That's welfare in the modern freeloader sense of the word.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
Every city has parks, but parks aren't mentioned in the Constitution. Every city has libraries, but libraries aren't mentioned in the Constitution.
Assuming that these facilities are reasonably well-dispersed geographically, these are institutions available and likely to be used by any and all citizens, not just a select few.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
Bus service is equally as much "for the public good" as are schools, libraries, parks, and much more. Every city has a Fire Dept, but FD's aren't mentioned in the Constitution.
No, I disagree here. Bus service that does not reach large parts of the population is a public assistance mechanism targeted at a relative few in select areas, not a service for "the common good." National defense, infectious disease control, fire and police protection, and maintenance of a road/rail network are good examples of the "common good."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
If we're going to make users of public services pay fully for them, and if we're going to exempt from paying all those who don't use them, then I want one hell of a refund from every jurisdiction in the nation where I've lived and supported public schools. I don't see public schools mentioned in the Constitution either.
Where'd you get YOUR education? And where do the thousands of people you depend on in an interconnected world get theirs? No, sorry, a basic level of education for each citizen does serve the common good. If it were up to me, attaining that basic level of education would be a requirement to vote or receive public assistance of any kind, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
Arguing that ONLY the users of a bus system should pay the full cost of the bus system does not stand up to the logic that has prevailed in this nation for generations; it's merely the logic of "I got mine, you can go to hell." Okay, so times are tight right now, that doesn't mean we throw out doing things for the public good.
What's next then? Should government also pay for the food people eat? I mean, by this same socialist/communist logic, the common good would be well-served by free food for everyone, since we all have to eat, right? And maybe the taxpayers should pay for natural gas, too, since we all need to heat our homes. Your food, your lodging, getting a cavity filled by the dentist, and yes, your transportation, are all for your personal good, not the common good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
A lot of people don't like the USOC deal and they don't care who they hurt with their backlash. Why don't they put their money where their mouth is and recall the idiot mayor. Oh wait, he's of our party, silly me, never mind, is there someone else we can screw.
He's not of my party, and where do I sign a petition?? But $53 million in city tax money offered up clandestinely away from the light of day deserves backlash, and those responsible for it are those that secretly brokered the deal in a smoky back room without asking the taxpayers. The taxpayers have the right not only to recall and/or fire those who breached the public trust with the deal, but to rescind it and revisit the issue publicly. There are issues in government that need secrecy (i.e. national security) but this ain't one of 'em any more than the details of the AIG bailout pass-through payments that Tim Geithner's NY Fed conspired to hide from public view.

Last edited by Bob from down south; 01-10-2010 at 11:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2010, 08:46 AM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
641 posts, read 1,956,398 times
Reputation: 423
Not supporting a tax increase does not equate to not caring about people.

That's just a plain ol' fallacy of logic. If A, then must equate to B. WRONG!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2010, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,102 posts, read 20,368,837 times
Reputation: 4132
I can understand not wanting to pay higher taxes but to say we should not provide bus service to people who can't afford a car and tell them they have to walk or bike just does not seem right to me. I know many people who can't afford a car and they are not freeloaders they are just doing the best they can on the budget they have, why make it more difficult for them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado > Colorado Springs
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top