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.
John good post, like I said... it is an ideological divide. Some of the most brilliant minds ever did most of their work in complete solitude. My post above of course was quite critical, but that is to better define why these ideologies emerge at polar ends of the argument. What some people see as progress putting up high rises and bridges, others see as completely destroying the land and natural beauty. Of course one might say, we need more efficient housing for more people... but my question is, why are people breeding so much when quality of life across broad spectrums continues to remain substandard. Our current system obviously can't support a high and respectable quality of life for most people.
No, they pay for that privilege to live a certain lifestyle because the U.S. is a materialistic, industrialized and status hungry society and almost 100% of city dwellers who live there by choice are geared towards this either via career status or social status. They wouldn't need all that stuff if they weren't constantly consuming and trying to become more "efficient" or in the name of some idea of "progress". It's an entire ideological divide.
So, the fact Blue subsidizes Red’s lifestyle is evidence of Blue’s collective decadence.
Care to debate me instead of trying to make sarcastic remarks to boost your ego on the internet? If you do, debate, if not, refrain please. Pretty simple.
So, the fact Blue subsidizes Red’s lifestyle is evidence of Blue’s collective decadence.
How do you figure they subsidize? Do you think that is actual, or artificial. It is completely artificial in an economy where inflation can be manipulated at will. Do you think they actually provide any more effort or hours? The government for years had people slaughter pigs and not plant crops b/c of their foreign entanglements or issues caused by over inflating the economy. The government largely created the problem, not the other way around. Most people living in rural environments would probably gladly live free of intermixing with the federal or state governments.
Not sure why I am even writing when you nonchalantly put up some "red vs blue" thing...it isn't even about that.
Care to debate me instead of trying to make sarcastic remarks to boost your ego on the internet? If you do, debate, if not, refrain please. Pretty simple.
I already illustrated one way. Pennsylvania spends more money subsidizing rural roads than they do mass transit. The real money pit in Pennsylvania is the rural areas. U.S. 15 through Lycoming and Tioga Counties gets turned into a four-lane limited-access highway even though traffic levels don't justify it. Meanwhile, I-376 remains a pair of cattle chutes through the Pittsburgh area. The money spent upgrading U.S. 15 would have been put to better use modernizing I-376.
How do you figure they subsidize? Do you think that is actual, or artificial. It is completely artificial in an economy where inflation can be manipulated at will. Do you think they actually provide any more effort or hours? The government for years had people slaughter pigs and not plant crops b/c of their foreign entanglements or issues caused by over inflating the economy. The government largely created the problem, not the other way around. Most people living in rural environments would probably gladly live free of intermixing with the federal or state governments.
Not sure why I am even writing when you nonchalantly put up some "red vs blue" thing...it isn't even about that.
Red v. Blue is merely a convenient and familiar shorthand, but granted, unnecessary for this discussion.
As far as Federal expenditures, there are "donor states" and "recipient states". Tax Donor or Contrib States
Recipient states very closely correlate with rural. You were presented with one specific example of that unfair distribution with regards to PA, and you somehow managed to balloon animal that into an example of the profligacy/values of Americans living in cities negatively affecting the lives of the those living in the rural areas. Many of your criticisms of the Federal government or of land used decisions at the local and state level may very well be justified, but that doesn't change an economic relationship that, on aggregate, benefits rural areas MORE than urban areas.
The fact there is so much reflexive denial of this reality goes a long way towards answering the question posed by this thread.
Rather incendiary statement wouldn't you say? What I see as a city person is a state legislature dominated by people with more rural concerns. Hence, the economic engine for the state subsidizes the less efficient rural areas, yet gets very little in return except for complaints that we ignore them.
You live in Massachusetts, with terrible geography for agriculture. Your rural areas are filled with colleges and professionals who commute to larger centers. Massachusetts is not a good example of the urban/rural divide in America.
Neighboring New York would be a better example. For example Delaware County, NY was once the #1 producing dairy county in the country. Now days it is rare to find a working dairy farm due to regulations imposed on the area from urban interests.
In Washington, rural areas were forced into the Growth Management Act which greatly limited their spatial economic pursuits. On top of that heavy handed regulations from DNR and other agencies, again from urban interests, are limiting what they can do with their land.
Rural area hate the urban areas for sticking their nose in their business and wrecking their lifestyle and economic pursuits.
Gnutella and nslander, but you need to go back into history and figure out why things are that way.
This might be an off putting example, but it is kind of like those who want to do away with Affirmative Action... Basically the political powers that be, largely based in cities consolidated power in the cities and concentrated wealth to unprecedented levels due to largely greed and industrialization. Railroad companies got illegal deals, so did mining and steel companies among others... Massive corruption went on that did not help the farmer.
Major examples include projects like the Hoover Dam and TVA.
The rural areas of the country were also largely screwed throughout history and those subsidies were long into law that were agreed upon back when farmers unions and such were forming like the **** (Southern Tenant Farmers Union) (no pun intended), or due to things that were passed during the New Deal that people are still arguing over.
So basically no, I don't think it is unfair they are being subsidized, because in reality they were downright screwed.
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.
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.
