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.
BTW, the exact same share of taxes from those backwoods dirt farmers goes to fund all the modern miracles. Breakthroughs in medicine and tech may reside in urban areas, but they are funded by their money just the same as your money.
The main point is that the backwoods farmers are this countries bread basket. They can adjust much easier to less tech while urban dwellers cannot adjust to less food. What's the use in having good medical facilities if you're starving? If the sh%t really hits the fan, do you think you'll have access to them? Don't fool yourself, you will not.
It's really that simple.
Keep in kind that all medicine began in the backwoods with remedies and elixirs. All homeopathic medicine, which is just now gaining mainstream acceptance, began in rural areas. Every medicine has roots from the basics.
BTW, Tyler Texas would be considered the boonies to you, yet they have world-class medical facilities and two Level II trauma centers, of which there are only 210 in the country. Backwoods may not be what you think it to be.
You need the farmers far more than they need you.
B.S. they need each other.
I'm tired of these obnoxious debates on who is "worth" more.
What are you talking about NYC sprawls all the way to Brick, NJ and into Connecticut it is several times bigger than Atlanta, so is Los Angeles. Atlanta is only bigger than San Francisco Bay Area and that’s because of geographical constraints means you can’t build out further. Also because of Atlanta’s size as it grows prices will shoot-up since it has essentially overextended itself. It’s not liberal policies that lead to high pricing it is the NIMBY-ism of American culture. The idea that every city can grow by adding a suburban house. When literally every country except Australia is several times denser than American cities. This cultural aspect isn’t a liberal thing either and is arguably stronger in Conservative communities. San Francisco is growing but parts of the area refuses to get denser because for some weird reason Americans hate change (Look at Japan and South Korean cities/ dense and very liveable).
NYC is he only city’s that addresses it’s affordability problems and it still expensive because it is literally the most desireable real estate in the world, not even more apartments can change that, luckily the city isn’t really growing anymore or else it might sprawl to Philadelphia.
Hit the point on the head. This is a uniquely American problem. We want to pretend we can all live in large houses with a yard 15 min from work.
This thinking is strong in this country, and extends across political ideologies. It's currently more severe in older cities, or cities with large geographical challenges - but all growing cities will hit the sprawl limit. You think the cities in the sun belt can continue to grow ad infinum in low density ways? That's frankly unsustainable at a certain point, and these cities will get there. Then they will face the same realities.
The argument that liberal policies leads to inflated housing doesn’t make sense. Successful communities(booms) lead to inflating housing prices then add NIMBY-ism which is again an American cultural aspect, you have San Francisco which if they want could technically builds ton between Oakland and Stockton, as well as cut into some of the hilly areas, but in reality that area is built out in an American way (Using strategies from foreign countries they could build an extensive amount and redevelop a ton of areas but then it would seize to be an American city in development).
The argument that liberalism leads to crime is a stronger argument than the first one for sure but makes zero sense when you look at the Conservative ran major cities of Tulsa and OKC are just as violent as their nearby liberal counterparts. The only deal decider in crime in American cities is history and demographics, if the metropolitan area of the city is more Black it’s going to have more crime, if it’s a legacy/rust belt city it may have more crime inside the city limits, if it is Hispanic flip a coin heads more crime tails doesn’t really matter (El Paso, San Diego and Austin vs. D.C, Los Angeles and Stockton) although places like D.C, NYC, Houston, Dallas and Atlanta have much lower crime for how Black these areas are. Looking st the evidence especially when you look at cities in Republican states as well as cities in Republican voting counties the argument of Liberal policies have ruined this city or that city doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
Last edited by NigerianNightmare; 12-18-2018 at 02:23 AM..
Hit the point on the head. This is a uniquely American problem. We want to pretend we can all live in large houses with a yard 15 min from work.
This thinking is strong in this country, and extends across political ideologies. It's currently more severe in older cities, or cities with large geographical challenges - but all growing cities will hit the sprawl limit. You think the cities in the sun belt can continue to grow ad infinum in low density ways? That's frankly unsustainable at a certain point, and these cities will get there. Then they will face the same realities.
Yes, luckily for me Houston area has lots of prime gentrification locations, is flat and relatively undeveloped East and South fo the city and new business districts are explanding on the rapidly growing north and west sides, but San Fran has found itself in a position were nearly everything has been gentrified, and the American culture of sprawl till we reach Narnia is already limited by geographical limits due to mountains, of course prices were going to hit $2 million dollars for a shack with a successful economy like San Francisco. San Francisco is currently the second densest metro politeness area in the U.S and their go-to move is still to build houses and yards just make them smaller and closer packed in together
I actually think their are two cities doing things right that are growing right now. Miami just straight up built a denser city than what is typical for the Southern U.S this isn’t a viable option since California is already doing a version of this. D.C is doing redevelopment is suburban malls/office parks near train stations and turning them into mixed-use residential areas called TODs, which is basically how the rest of the world and Japan especially built their great cities. I think the problem with San Francisco is that the NIMBYism is such a cancer that it is most present in cities themselves so how do you expect the suburbs do get denser when people in San Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland still want to live in houses themselves yet they live in the middle of a metropolitan area of 9 million. It’s only in the U.S were a development made entirely of houses connected to each other is considered extremely dense. I have nothing against these neighborhoods and think their gorgeous and uniquely American but their has to be a compromise or soon we will be hearing you need to bring in 1 million dollars a year to afford to live in the outskirts of San Francisco.
Every time I watch a video on YouTube or read a Facebook article, its the same posters who often blame liberals for this and that. I was watching a video about the most states receiving California transplants and virtually all the comments were attacking liberals.
Usually I do not take anyone seriously who is quick to blame a situation on something or someone else in order to make it appear as if the answer is "simple" because its usually based out of ignorance.
With that being said I want to speak about liberal cities that have been destroyed (Detroit, St, Louis, Baltimore etc) and cities that are going through supply and demand issues affecting cost of living (LA, NYC, SF etc). I always considered the reason for the latter was the manufacturing companies who left these cities, and for the former I always figured that supply and demand and certain policies played a major part in the middle class fleeing. I have never really heard of an in demand conservative city to even compare.
So why is the liberals blamed for all of this? Is it really the liberals fault or is it really the simple fact that conservatives come from places that aren't really relevant for us to really blame them for anything?
I used to live in Baltimore for years. Cities by far and away are run by Democrats, and the Democrats don't have anyone to blame but themselves for the deplorable state of a city like Baltimore. Republicans haven't had a snowvall's chance in hell in a city like Baltimore for nearly 70 years and the Dems have been given carte blanche to do whatever they want the whole time. When you have automatic votes because of your party affiliation in a city like Baltimore, you can skate by on barely producing results because you will get automatically reelected.
Look I'm a registered independent who is slightly left leaning, but some of the policies prescribed by Democrats in Baltimore were truly mind warping. The biggest issue was letting go of violent, hardenednc riminals by Baltimore judges (elected by democrat voters) with laughable sentences. I remember when one guy was stabbed to death by a group of teens while riding his bike home from work, and in less than a year one of the kids was already back out on the street. The commissioner just wrote an OpEd the other describing how one guy they picked up had been arrested almost 20 times yet judges kept letting him out. There are literally one man crimewaves in Baltimore because democrat voters continue to allow it to happen.
Then there is the issue of taxes. Baltimore has insane property taxes....you'll pay over $15000 per year on a modest $300-400k house because of how high taxes are. Democrats kept increasing taxes alllllllll throughout the 90s and into the early 2000s and it completely drove away residents and business due to the cost. Baltimore had been bleeding population loss for forever now and taxes whoever is left and can pay exhorbitantly like the city still has 1 million residents.
Finally, the amount of corruption in Democrat run Baltimore is truly astounding. It isn't like we haven't tried for years to invest in Baltimore to improve it. Billions of dollars have been spent with 0 results because of corruption. Clinton gave Baltimore hundreds of millions of dollars for EMPOWERMENT zones to generate jobs in the most underprivileged areas, and nothing came out of it. Baltimore routinely hires consultants for hundreds or possibly thousands of dollars per hour to do jobs that city workers should be doing (i.e. consultants are friends of politicians). Baltimore school admins have been caught spending money on lavish trips and hotels for vacation, on hair dressers for their daughters, and for upgrading their offices with cushy amenities. Even the city dump isn't free from corruption. City workers were caught taking millions in bribes from out of city contractors who paid them to be able to dump their trash in the city. All of this is just a tip of the iceberg when it comes to corruption in Baltimore, I could go on for hours with more examples.
And you may wonder why there are no checks in the isanr amount of wasteful spending in Baltimore. Many people don't know it, but the comptroller of the city is like the #2 or #3 ranked most important person in the government. Baltimore's comptroller held her job for nearly 20+ years without ever being challenged once because she is the elected democrat. She gets paid nearly $200,000 to do nothing. It was later revealed last year or so that many of the city's departments haven't been audited in literally decades. That's what the comptroller is supposed to do. When the department is run by a Democrats who wants to overpay and order of magnitude for work or supplies because the company they're using is owned by their friends or family, rest assured the comptroller won't be holding you liable any time soon because they too are a democrat who you can give money to.
So yeah, for a city like Baltimore at least, Dems are almost unanimously responsible for its current state.
I used to live in Baltimore for years. Cities by far and away are run by Democrats, and the Democrats don't have anyone to blame but themselves for the deplorable state of a city like Baltimore. Republicans haven't had a snowvall's chance in hell in a city like Baltimore for nearly 70 years and the Dems have been given carte blanche to do whatever they want the whole time. When you have automatic votes because of your party affiliation in a city like Baltimore, you can skate by on barely producing results because you will get automatically reelected.
Look I'm a registered independent who is slightly left leaning, but some of the policies prescribed by Democrats in Baltimore were truly mind warping. The biggest issue was letting go of violent, hardenednc riminals by Baltimore judges (elected by democrat voters) with laughable sentences. I remember when one guy was stabbed to death by a group of teens while riding his bike home from work, and in less than a year one of the kids was already back out on the street. The commissioner just wrote an OpEd the other describing how one guy they picked up had been arrested almost 20 times yet judges kept letting him out. There are literally one man crimewaves in Baltimore because democrat voters continue to allow it to happen.
Then there is the issue of taxes. Baltimore has insane property taxes....you'll pay over $15000 per year on a modest $300-400k house because of how high taxes are. Democrats kept increasing taxes alllllllll throughout the 90s and into the early 2000s and it completely drove away residents and business due to the cost. Baltimore had been bleeding population loss for forever now and taxes whoever is left and can pay exhorbitantly like the city still has 1 million residents.
Finally, the amount of corruption in Democrat run Baltimore is truly astounding. It isn't like we haven't tried for years to invest in Baltimore to improve it. Billions of dollars have been spent with 0 results because of corruption. Clinton gave Baltimore hundreds of millions of dollars for EMPOWERMENT zones to generate jobs in the most underprivileged areas, and nothing came out of it. Baltimore routinely hires consultants for hundreds or possibly thousands of dollars per hour to do jobs that city workers should be doing (i.e. consultants are friends of politicians). Baltimore school admins have been caught spending money on lavish trips and hotels for vacation, on hair dressers for their daughters, and for upgrading their offices with cushy amenities. Even the city dump isn't free from corruption. City workers were caught taking millions in bribes from out of city contractors who paid them to be able to dump their trash in the city. All of this is just a tip of the iceberg when it comes to corruption in Baltimore, I could go on for hours with more examples.
And you may wonder why there are no checks in the isanr amount of wasteful spending in Baltimore. Many people don't know it, but the comptroller of the city is like the #2 or #3 ranked most important person in the government. Baltimore's comptroller held her job for nearly 20+ years without ever being challenged once because she is the elected democrat. She gets paid nearly $200,000 to do nothing. It was later revealed last year or so that many of the city's departments haven't been audited in literally decades. That's what the comptroller is supposed to do. When the department is run by a Democrats who wants to overpay and order of magnitude for work or supplies because the company they're using is owned by their friends or family, rest assured the comptroller won't be holding you liable any time soon because they too are a democrat who you can give money to.
So yeah, for a city like Baltimore at least, Dems are almost unanimously responsible for its current state.
This is the strongest argument I have seen in years. I agree then the Democratic Party is at fault for the state of Baitmore, if all of this is true and the upper democratic leadership (statewide) knew about this and they didn’t do anything that is disgusting. My argument though is that in general you could argue things are worse in certain cities do to policies but to me it all boils down to History first, demographics second and politics third. For example cities like Baltimore and Saint Louis are basically screwed because city and county are split hence these two cities have the worst homicide rate in America. That is a historical decision that leads to bad decisions being made today.
Go ahead, still pales in comparison to the war zone inner cities of America, governed by liberals.
When you kill another human being, that's worse than drug use, poverty, and lack of healthcare. There is ZERO excuse for it. You're going to prison for a long time, if not for life.
Liberals have FAILED their constituents in the inner city and failed to keep them safe from the criminals who run these neighborhoods. And the poor victims of these communities just keep voting for liberals.
How did liberals fail? Because they PAY you to have kids in America. They fund and provide incentive to the very behavior that should be avoided by America's underclass, unwed pregnancy.
So now wonder little kids grow up to commit all kinds of crime. There is no father in the house, as there is far more welfare and less taxes to receive, with far less effort, with an absent father.
Can you show proof of conservatives currently keeping their citizens safe from crime? Crime is more complex than politics. LA, SF, Boston, NYC all have super low crime rates so why are you picking on dangerous cities that have a well known problem of being broke and losing industry?
What I don't understand is that the poor in Los Angeles or San Francisco face the exact same problems as the poor in rural West Virginia or Kentucky. Yet, conservatives think they have free reign to insult the urban poor. Imagine if liberals on this board started making threads saying people in Appalachia are stupid and lazy.
Obviously they're not, but I'm trying to make a point.
The way Trump supporters talk about America's inner cities make me wonder if they realize that it isn't 1992 anymore. Sure, there are some that have some very big problems but for the most part, urban America is in much better shape now than it was in the 1980s and early 1990s.
I'm on my way to Florida within the next five years, thank you for asking!
There is no hope for Baltimore, which is a sad thing for me to say. It's only getting worse because clueless liberals continue to double down on the same failed ideology and the same tired ideas.
I'll be following right behind you Stuck in Illinois now, due to job, but looking to transfer out of this dumpster fire of a state, Florida is my goal but anywhere in the Midwest is acceptable at this point
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.
Stuck in Illinois now, due to job, but looking to transfer out of this dumpster fire of a state, Florida is my goal but anywhere in the Midwest is acceptable at this point