/n/ - Transportation » Thread #1673793

[285 / 43 / ?]

122KiB, 800x511, deconstruction-ahead-lla200406-highlight.jpg

New Infrastructure Bill

Anonymous Fri 25 Jun 2021 14:18:42 No.1673793 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>1673803 >>1673841 >>1673960 >>1673974 >>1674570 >>1674717 >>1675125 >>1676392

$109 billion roads, bridges
$7.5 billion EV charging stations
$66 billion railroads
$49 billion public transit
$25 billion airports
$16 billion seaports
$73 billion power grid
$55 billion water and sewers
$21 billion environmental remediation
$47 billion climate resiliency

They're still working out how to pay for it. I would've raised the gas tax and/r tolled more highways but Biden doesn't want to do that.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/24/infrastructure-deal-talks-biden-invites-bipartisan-senators-to-white-house.html

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO multi track drifting.jpg, 488KiB, 1125x1402

Anonymous Fri 25 Jun 2021 15:01:11 No.1673803 Report

Quoted By: >>1673810 >>1673818 >>1673819 >>1675413

>>1673793

>$66 billion railroads
>$49 billion transit

So about ~115 billion total

We need more like $660 billion, and the message from this is that CA will still have to finance half of CAHSR itself. Of this we get $6 billion for Fresno-Bakersfield and $16 billion for SJ-Fresno. That's $32 billion, just under half the total RR money allotted. Unless CAHSR gets access to the "transit" money (not guaranteed) the whole buildout looks shaky if Democrats can't provide the money for Bakersfield-LA. Though, I'll qualify my opinion by saying that this is just the infrastructure deal and not the STB deal, which is likely to pass as well and commit a similar amount of money (about $547 billion total). Both of the bills need to pass IMO.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Jun 2021 15:05:38 No.1673810 Report

Quoted By:

>>1673803

CAHSR could also grift "climate resiliency" money too, assuming it doesn't all guzzle into levees around Miami.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Jun 2021 15:08:55 No.1673812 Report

Quoted By: >>1674392 >>1676255

why don't they just steal jeff amazon's bank details while he's in space. that'll buy a few nice trains right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Jun 2021 15:32:49 No.1673818 Report

Quoted By:

>>1673803
It's a big step up from previous infrastructure packages.
I'm guessing the Biden administration will propose more rail-specific stuff once this hurdle's cleared. They've also made the RAISE grant program which is more for bike stuff and I think these two packages are helpful.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Jun 2021 15:34:49 No.1673819 Report

Quoted By:

>>1673803
>the message from this is that CA will still have to finance half of CAHSR itself
Good

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Jun 2021 16:24:29 No.1673841 Report

Quoted By: >>1673959 >>1673983 >>1677045

>>1673793
ITT: city slickers raise my taxes for shit I’ll never use. Every point you listed is already taken care of at a state level

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Jun 2021 16:26:52 No.1673843 Report

Quoted By: >>1673869

this won't get passed because Biden has verbatim said "if the other bill doesn't get on my desk I won't sign this" and Pelosi and Schumer have confirmed this is their approach and will put forward the "human infrastructure" bill soon. It is literally just theatrics to show people "Look we can shake hands we are a good bipartisan government"

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Jun 2021 17:56:12 No.1673869 Report

Quoted By:

>>1673843
I'm so glad that politics is back to bitching about bipartisan agreements over spending bills. it makes me feel like it's the 90s again.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Jun 2021 19:36:57 No.1673912 Report

Quoted By: >>1673921 >>1673955

At least half will vanish in paying bureaucrats, consultants, lawyers, and scientists. 30 percent of the remaining half will go to contractor grift.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Jun 2021 19:44:27 No.1673914 Report

Quoted By: >>1673926 >>1673941

Idk how politics work. Is this gonna make my taxes go up or are they just shuffling money around?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Jun 2021 19:51:26 No.1673921 Report

Quoted By:

>>1673912
This

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Jun 2021 19:58:56 No.1673926 Report

Quoted By:

>>1673914
both

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Jun 2021 20:57:05 No.1673941 Report

Quoted By: >>1673942

>>1673914
Mostly money printing. So still taxation through inflation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Jun 2021 21:00:59 No.1673942 Report

Quoted By: >>1674666

>>1673941
But Inflation taxes the working and middle classes. While benefiting the rich by making their debts smaller.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Jun 2021 21:53:44 No.1673955 Report

Quoted By:

>>1673912
This except that which is actually spend will barely pay for anything due to hyperi
inflation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Jun 2021 22:15:49 No.1673959 Report

Quoted By: >>1674031 >>1674175 >>1675732 >>1677158

>>1673841
Yep, I live in flyover country. Why should I have to play for transportation for some stupid city dweller in New York of San Francisco. I'm never going to use it. Fuck that shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Jun 2021 22:17:58 No.1673960 Report

Quoted By:

>>1673793
Ah yes. Time for the rich to get rich and the poor to get poorer. I cant wait to stand in the line for bread all day. But at least I can get to the bread line in a nice shiny bus!

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Jun 2021 23:32:55 No.1673974 Report

Quoted By: >>1673984

>>1673793

>raised the gas tax and/r tolled more highways
These are both miserable and regressive ideas. Gas tax needs to be completely revamped as more people buy electric. Otherwise in the future only the poor will be paying for roads.
Hwy toll funds don't work however you think they work.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 25 Jun 2021 23:44:44 No.1673980 Report

Quoted By: >>1673991 >>1675301

Why the fuck is federal money going to transit? Roads and rail I get, but why should a McDonald’s worker in Arkansas be paying for trains in New York?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 00:03:30 No.1673983 Report

Quoted By: >>1673989 >>1674021

>>1673841
But rural areas are dependent on subsidy from city centers for their transportation and infrastructure funding.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 00:04:42 No.1673984 Report

Quoted By: >>1673991 >>1675300

>>1673974
If you use the road, you pay for it. If you drive an EV the toll covers your use. And EVs should pay a yearly fee.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 00:26:59 No.1673989 Report

Quoted By: >>1675309

>>1673983
This is delusion

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 00:31:09 No.1673991 Report

Quoted By:

>>1673980
McDonald's workers effectively pay nothing to trains no matter where they live (on payroll tax).

They don't make enough money to contribute.

>>1673984
Not all roads are tollable.
For hwys you could argue for distance tolls but even then only the highest use roads get tolls.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 01:47:08 No.1674010 Report

Quoted By: >>1674030

Also on transit- why are we even paying for it to get built? We’re basically crowdfunding whatever retarded thing the government thinks it’s can build. I don’t get forced to pay for lays to introduce a new flavor, why do I have to pay for trains? At least I can get the lays near me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 02:08:56 No.1674018 Report

Quoted By:

Congress has not boosted the 18.4-cents-per-gallon federal gasoline tax since 1993. That tax is now worth just 10.2 cents after adjusting for inflation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 02:10:49 No.1674020 Report

Quoted By: >>1674022

I hope it doesn't include Biden's plan to subsidize rural internet. That's just more expensive handouts to the rural people, who are a small fraction of the country.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 02:15:45 No.1674021 Report

Quoted By: >>1675309

>>1673983
(Source)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 02:18:26 No.1674022 Report

Quoted By: >>1674061

>>1674020
Internet is something everyone can use. Transit in big cities and even small cities is something only a fraction of the population will ever use.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 02:19:18 No.1674024 Report

Quoted By: >>1674027 >>1674029 >>1674060 >>1674149 >>1675403 >>1676243 >>1676268

>Nationally, many of the states that receive the highest per-capita rates of federal investment have greater shares of their population in rural communities, such as South Carolina, North Dakota, and Louisiana. Meanwhile, many of the states that receive the lowest rates of federal investment have greater shares of their population in urban centers, including Delaware, Illinois, and Ohio.

>This pattern holds for state government spending, too. Studies in Minnesota, Georgia, and Wisconsin reveal that metropolitan areas contribute more to state coffers than they receive in education, infrastructure, and other public services investments. In Georgia, for instance, metropolitan Atlanta provides
61 percent of state revenue but receives just 46 percent of state investment.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 02:24:55 No.1674027 Report

Quoted By:

>>1674024
That must be why they’re so much better to live in and the people are happier there.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 02:28:39 No.1674029 Report

Quoted By: >>1675310

>>1674024
How is this related to infrastructure?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 02:30:50 No.1674030 Report

Quoted By:

>>1674010
You.dont understand how bonds work dipshit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 02:31:52 No.1674031 Report

Quoted By: >>1674032 >>1677925

>>1673959
That's not how it works at all you retarded fucking faggots.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 02:36:21 No.1674032 Report

Quoted By: >>1674041

>>1674031
Attacking the person rather than the argument means you have no argument at all, anon

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 03:29:24 No.1674041 Report

Quoted By:

>>1674032
Good thing he attacked the argument, anon

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 04:17:04 No.1674056 Report

Quoted By: >>1674638

EV charging isn’t standard like gas stations are right? Such a waste

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 04:26:33 No.1674060 Report

Quoted By: >>1674138 >>1674145 >>1675366 >>1677271

>>1674024
...and yet they can't even grow their own crops, harvest their own timber, mine their own raw materials, or have inter-state infrastructure within their city limits.

Fucking cucks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 04:30:23 No.1674061 Report

Quoted By: >>1674063

>>1674022
>only a fraction of the population will ever use
LOL

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 04:37:45 No.1674063 Report

Quoted By:

>>1674061
He's right

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 12:44:58 No.1674138 Report

Quoted By: >>1674166 >>1674176 >>1677271

>>1674060
This. Cities couldn't survive without the hinterlands.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 13:06:56 No.1674145 Report

Quoted By: >>1674149 >>1674358

>>1674060
And somehow those rural areas rely on massive gibs from the city centers to survive.
I grew up in the South, where the New Deal and the Tennessee Valley Authority basically saved the economy by building out infrastructure for us.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 13:12:43 No.1674149 Report

Quoted By: >>1674155

>>1674024
>>1674145

So the states that grow all of the food we need to survive and be self sufficient get more money than cities that produce flat design and beat poetry? Sounds based.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 13:23:53 No.1674155 Report

Quoted By: >>1674157

>>1674149
Epic goalpost-moving bro

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 13:27:58 No.1674157 Report

Quoted By: >>1675311

>>1674155
What does that even mean

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 13:31:40 No.1674159 Report

Quoted By:

>these New York billionaires have been taxed enough! We need the wal mart greeter to pay his fair share!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 14:08:35 No.1674166 Report

Quoted By: >>1674358

>>1674138
You clearly don't understand the direction money flows.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 14:23:42 No.1674175 Report

Quoted By: >>1675451 >>1677925

>>1673959
The city slickers in the coastal metropolises keep the economy going and let you buy cheap chinese and mexican shit rather than living on the same QOL as a pajeet dirt farmer. But I guess systems thinking is not the strong suit of petrol huffing sister fucking rednecks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 14:24:45 No.1674176 Report

Quoted By: >>1674249 >>1674358 >>1677925

>>1674138
>says the peasant while snorting federal subsidies and surviving off trade restrictions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 14:32:26 No.1674178 Report

Quoted By: >>1674181 >>1675314

Giving subsidies to farmers makes food cheap for everyone in the country. Why is that a bad thing?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 14:42:25 No.1674179 Report

Quoted By: >>1674180

It’s almost as if cities and farmers are both necessary lifestyles for a functional civilization and humans range in sociability and desire in a distribution that allows for a society that produces, consumes, grows and modernizes on all levels. Rural and Urban people should stop fighting over resources and respect that they aren’t in the suburbs where soul is devoid and the worst of both worlds is recognized in a Nimbyocracy

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 14:51:48 No.1674180 Report

Quoted By: >>1674182

>>1674179
Suburbs really aren’t that bad. They’re actually better than living in the city in a lot of ways.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 14:51:59 No.1674181 Report

Quoted By:

>>1674178
No it doesn't you fucking moron. The vast majority of farm subsidies don't go to food crops.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 14:53:58 No.1674182 Report

Quoted By: >>1674183 >>1674210 >>1674229

>>1674180
Sprawly suburbs (think tract housing with shitty street design and cul-de-sacs everywhere) are mathematically incapable of generating enough tax base to support their hyper-inefficient infrastructure requirements.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 8D0160FB-C294-4D69-891C-143990F6 (...).jpg, 650KiB, 1284x1124

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 14:57:49 No.1674183 Report

Quoted By: >>1674184 >>1676790

>>1674182
Ok who cares, people are happier in suburbs, let people be happy and let the idiots in the city grind to make our lives better

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 15:02:51 No.1674184 Report

Quoted By: >>1674189 >>1674190

>>1674183
>Self reported happiness is relevant
They also kill themselves more and do more heroin

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO AA71F88B-3626-4510-A3B3-F1A4F151 (...).jpg, 294KiB, 1284x633

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 15:19:45 No.1674189 Report

Quoted By:

>>1674184
Yeah there’s no way people in the suburbs use more drugs than people in cities lmao

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 97C017AE-3BCD-480F-A2D9-6FEB6F18 (...).jpg, 440KiB, 1082x900

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 15:20:56 No.1674190 Report

Quoted By: >>1674192 >>1676904

>>1674184
Also people in urban areas overwhelmingly want to move to the suburbs, and last year a ton of them did

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 3F778C25-89BD-4CBF-BB48-A09FD0F1 (...).jpg, 400KiB, 1284x1190

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 15:21:58 No.1674191 Report

Quoted By: >>1676904

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 15:29:30 No.1674192 Report

Quoted By: >>1674193

>>1674190
definitely has nothing to do with the 70 year propaganda campaign

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 051510A6-59B0-4566-92D8-FCF7E220 (...).jpg, 365KiB, 1284x623

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 15:32:44 No.1674193 Report

Quoted By: >>1676904

>>1674192
Yeah, could be. Or it’s because they’re better places to live.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 16:33:03 No.1674210 Report

Quoted By: >>1674211 >>1674219

>>1674182
You post this all the time but never any real evidence to support it

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 16:37:42 No.1674211 Report

Quoted By: >>1674214

>>1674210
I mean he's not wrong. Places where people just live are obviously going to contribute less than a downtown area where every single business is located. But like, it doesn't matter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 16:45:50 No.1674214 Report

Quoted By: >>1674215

>>1674211
How do you know though?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 16:49:52 No.1674215 Report

Quoted By:

>>1674214
I don’t, maybe he is just lying. But even if he’s not it’s not really a gotcha, it’s like getting rid of the parks department because the trees don’t generate tax revenue.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 16:55:49 No.1674219 Report

Quoted By: >>1674221

>>1674210
I also post that same thing because it’s true. Suburbs require a lot more infrastructure funding per capita. And people do post sources, you just get butthurt and claim the source isn’t good because it hurts your feelings.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 0BD60A21-C9B5-4E87-845A-23FC7F83 (...).jpg, 139KiB, 657x456

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 16:59:54 No.1674220 Report

Quoted By:

Most republicans want to improve transit in America.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 17:00:24 No.1674221 Report

Quoted By: >>1674223

>>1674219
First of all, you need to be clear whether you're talking about subdivisions or suburbs, they are not interchangeable terms. Secondly, you're changing the argument from "they can't support themselves" to "they need more money per capita." Decide which one you mean. Lastly, post evidence that's not a .jpg from a blog that cites a single cherry-picked example.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 17:03:27 No.1674223 Report

Quoted By: >>1674229

>>1674221
>Secondly, you're changing the argument from "they can't support themselves" to "they need more money per capita."
LOL what, no I’m not. Both are true.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 17:21:03 No.1674229 Report

Quoted By: >>1674251

>>1674223
Well, you did change the argument from this >>1674182 to "per capita." And again, no evidence to support it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 17:55:04 No.1674249 Report

Quoted By: >>1675732

>>1674176
Says the wagecuck living in a shithole city breathing air so dirty you'd be better off breathing out of a dirty vaccum cleaner bag.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 18:05:09 No.1674251 Report

Quoted By: >>1674255

>>1674229
Nope. That other poster wasn’t me. No one’s changing arguments here but you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 18:16:39 No.1674255 Report

Quoted By: >>1674265

>>1674251
>Still no source

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 18:52:08 No.1674265 Report

Quoted By: >>1674273

>>1674255
Nice goalpost moving. As stated before: People have provided you sources a dozen times, at which point you move the goalpost again.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 19:09:09 No.1674273 Report

Quoted By:

>>1674265
Just post some evidence bro. All you've got is that jpg and I know you're dying to.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 19:14:07 No.1674278 Report

Quoted By: >>1674283 >>1676842

What do we need to spend $25 billion on airports for?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 26 Jun 2021 19:22:28 No.1674283 Report

Quoted By: >>1674403

>>1674278
More TSA agents to feel us up.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Jun 2021 00:51:20 No.1674358 Report

Quoted By: >>1676268

>>1674145
My point was that in order to look at the "gibs" from cities, you have to look at the full cycle of a specific economic sector. The simple fact is economies centered on refining or providing finished goods has been more profitable than raw material collection since the Industrial Revolution. That doesn't mean that raw materials aren't needed, quite the opposite, but by design rural economies can't financially compete with urban ones. Rural economies' subsidies are necessary costs to service urban centers.
>grew up in the South, where the New Deal and the Tennessee Valley Authority basically saved the economy by building out infrastructure for us.
TVA, in my opinion, is probably a prime example of the government investing funds properly. From my understanding the TVA now makes the US more money than it costs to operate, and it also provided power service to a large region of the US that was, previously, dead broke. This is goes to show that investment in smaller communities can also provide long-term value.
>>1674166
You clearly don't understand the supply chain for the items you use and consume on a daily basis, either. Your cheap plastic shit, and your medications are based on petroleum products that come from rural communities. Anything metal you've touched was most likely mined in a rural community. Oh and have you eaten in the last 48 hours? Was everything in your home produced within city limits? Things need to be transported between cities. Those roads and railways need to be upkept, and rarely can a town of 1500 people finance 10 miles of interstate. That's why those regions are subsidized.
>>1674176
Trade restrictions during the Trump Administration were actually pretty damaging to a lot of farmers. Makes a guy think.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Jun 2021 02:59:39 No.1674392 Report

Quoted By:

>>1673812
>that'll buy a few nice trains right?
Yeah. War trains and the seven battalions it'll carry in some random bumfuck Middle Eastern company.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Jun 2021 03:34:12 No.1674403 Report

Quoted By: >>1674404

>>1674283
Can we please start pushing to scale back TSA

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Jun 2021 03:35:48 No.1674404 Report

Quoted By: >>1674455 >>1674457

>>1674403
There was security before TSA. Main thing I don't want to do are those body scanners

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Jun 2021 07:42:06 No.1674455 Report

Quoted By: >>1674457

>>1674404
>Main thing I don't want to do are those body scanners
I've only had to go through one of those once since they got introduced over here. The operator was a cute girl, and honestly it's pretty funny to think that her job forced her to look at my flabby naked body.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Jun 2021 07:50:06 No.1674457 Report

Quoted By:

>>1674404
The scanners are quick and prevent groping. The tsa horror stories started after people pushed back against the scanners.>>1674455

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Jun 2021 14:08:41 No.1674570 Report

Quoted By: >>1674609

>>1673793
biden blew it on this bill. it's not happening.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Jun 2021 16:14:57 No.1674608 Report

Quoted By:

Looks like the final agreed-upon amounts are
$109 billion for roads and bridges, $15 billion for electric-vehicle infrastructure and electric buses, $66 billion to improve the railroads, and $49 billion for mass transit

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a36851491/bipartisan-infrastructure-plan-details/

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO retarded wojak.jpg, 67KiB, 919x1024

Anonymous Sun 27 Jun 2021 16:15:59 No.1674609 Report

Quoted By: >>1674762

>>1674570
t.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Jun 2021 17:16:57 No.1674638 Report

Quoted By:

>>1674056
It's free money for the corporations building those and then making profit without returning the money to the feds. Don't you love our system?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Jun 2021 18:45:45 No.1674666 Report

Quoted By:

>>1673942
yes and? this is exactly the way it has been in recent times and will always be

its 100% intentional

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 20210622_211021.jpg, 104KiB, 828x680

Anonymous Sun 27 Jun 2021 19:53:16 No.1674693 Report

Quoted By: >>1674705 >>1674754 >>1674764

Why are Americans so cheap? In Toronto, the regional rail and metro system expansions will cost north of $55 billion once complete in 2030

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Jun 2021 20:12:13 No.1674705 Report

Quoted By:

>>1674693
we send most of our money to isreal

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Jun 2021 20:45:00 No.1674717 Report

Quoted By:

>>1673793
so like, three stealth bombers to fix the entire crumbling infrastructure of the entire country?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Jun 2021 21:45:12 No.1674754 Report

Quoted By: >>1675127 >>1675255

>>1674693
We aren’t. But the GOP, which represents a significantly smaller share of Americans, fights against rail as much as they can because their campaigns are heavily funded by oil companies.

Check our opensecrets.org to see how much the oil companies fund the GOP.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Jun 2021 22:06:28 No.1674762 Report

Quoted By: >>1674781

>>1674609
Nah. It's all fucked.

Nothing will get done, and on purpose. So they can campaign on it. Until the filibuster is banned or the dems have 60 in the senate.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 39b.jpg, 79KiB, 600x754

Anonymous Sun 27 Jun 2021 22:12:09 No.1674764 Report

Quoted By: >>1675260

>>1674693
Because we have to pay for the defense of all of the Europoors and you dumb leafs. Doesn't leave enough money to subsidize a failing rail industry.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 27 Jun 2021 22:43:11 No.1674781 Report

Quoted By:

>>1674762
Looks like your original post said “the amount that has been passed will never get passed” and now you’re moving the goalpost cause you didn’t know anything about the topic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 16:24:56 No.1675125 Report

Quoted By:

>>1673793
Wowee, $10 million for infrastructure and hundreds of billions of democrat graft. Sure would be a shame if 80% of all federal spending wasn't spent on welfare.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 16:28:57 No.1675127 Report

Quoted By:

>>1674754
>muh oil
Anon... Diesel is a waste product. Even if the corrupt grafters and their useful idiots got everything train-related they wanted, the amount of cars on the road wouldn't change. You're retarded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 20:09:13 No.1675255 Report

Quoted By:

>>1674754
>significantly smaller share of Americans, fights against rail as much as
The GOP share of trumps votes in 2020 was larger than Obama. Stop pretending the representation means anything accurate. And the states defunded trains because of crime waves in the 70s. Everyone moved to the suburbs and didn't want to pay taxes for something they were never going to use because homeless harassed them every trip.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 20:20:21 No.1675260 Report

Quoted By: >>1675307

>>1674764
You pay money to keep pressuring Euro countries into being your client states. If you really think the US is lol so altruistic lmao you're beyond fucktarded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 21:12:19 No.1675300 Report

Quoted By:

>>1673984
>If you use the road, you pay for it.
But gas taxes aren't indexed to inflation or any measure of spending. Efficiency standards also erode their power.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 21:13:59 No.1675301 Report

Quoted By:

>>1673980
Take that worker's income tax payments, divide by four trillion or so, then multiply by the cost of this. That's that worker's share.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 50bb1d91-f322-4e99-a07e-c6cae71f (...).jpg, 41KiB, 780x520

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 21:52:44 No.1675307 Report

Quoted By: >>1675735 >>1677165

>>1675260
If it wasn't for the US, Europe would be sucking his prick.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 22:00:23 No.1675309 Report

Quoted By: >>1675312 >>1675313 >>1676268

>>1673989
>>1674021
Large areas need to be covered (relatively high costs), but the population density (i.e. the incoming tax revenue) is not high, and the per capita economic output is not high enough to compensate.
Part of this is addressed by simply offering lower levels of service, like septic tanks and wells rather than water districts.
In healthcare, for example, rural hospitals account for half of the US total, but split only 18% of the population amongst themselves.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-634.pdf
25%
Other reports find rural physician-population ratios between a third and half that of urban areas.
Part of it is dealt with by transfers from other regions.
https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/msa2014.pdf
For Minnesota, population is near evenly split between metro and non-metro districts, but state revenue (see pages 61, 66, 72, 94, 98) is disproportionately coming from metro areas.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 22:04:01 No.1675310 Report

Quoted By:

>>1674029
Same holds for infrastructure. Interstate passing by some small town is not paid for by that town.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 22:05:03 No.1675311 Report

Quoted By:

>>1674157
It means that ~20% of the population lives in rural areas, but only ~2% are farmers/corporate farm employees. "Rural" does not mean "food producer."

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 22:06:30 No.1675312 Report

Quoted By:

>>1675309
Would you care to admit you're wrong now?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 22:07:35 No.1675313 Report

Quoted By: >>1675322

>>1675309
It should be incredibly obvious to everyone that providing the same services over a much larger geographic footprint costs more. Utilities cost money per foot. The notion that density is an aesthetic difference is pure delusion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 22:07:57 No.1675314 Report

Quoted By: >>1675318

>>1674178
But if they're paying for subsidies with taxes, then they aren't actually saving money on food.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 22:12:27 No.1675318 Report

Quoted By: >>1675367 >>1675373 >>1675897 >>1675906 >>1676233

>>1675314
Subsidies aren't about lowering the cost. That's marxoid/leftist retardation. Subsidies, in their proper form, exist to ensure domestic production capacity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 22:15:14 No.1675322 Report

Quoted By: >>1675326 >>1675335

>>1675313
>It should be incredibly obvious to everyone that providing the same services over a much larger geographic footprint costs more.
Opinion. What's "obvious" isn't necessarily correct. Stringing up power lines on poles along a county road is not cost-prohibitive or they would not exist. Burying utilities and building/operating infrastructure for the greater amounts of power, water, vehicles, and sewage that urban areas use isn't inexpensive.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 22:19:42 No.1675326 Report

Quoted By: >>1675329

>>1675322
Of course it's less expensive per capita, are you an idiot?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 22:21:39 No.1675329 Report

Quoted By: >>1675332

>>1675326
With cagetrolls it’s hard to tell if they’re just spamming bullshit or if they’re genuinely retarded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 22:24:42 No.1675330 Report

Quoted By: >>1675336

Who cares what’s more expensive if it makes you happier and less prone to mental illness?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 22:27:03 No.1675332 Report

Quoted By: >>1675339

>>1675329
Anon... you're part of the group that believe that stealing money for an expensive and inferior form of transportation is a good idea because europe keeps their peasant slaves in such abject poverty that they can't afford the superior alternatives and therefore use the inferior alternatives as a first and last resort. Like you have to either be retarded faggot or a member of a death cult to advocate for that level of faggotry.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Rural Road Updated Statistics 02 (...).jpg, 70KiB, 811x610

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 22:28:17 No.1675335 Report

Quoted By: >>1675337 >>1675347

>>1675322
>stringing up power lines on poles along a county road
But do that over hundreds of thousands if not millions of kilometers, and watch it add up. Do that, then come and fix it any time a storm or a falling branch knocks a line out, and watch it add up. Replace all that at some point, and watch it add up.
> or they would not exist
Much rural electrification was accomplished by government initiatives. There are fixed costs to maintain that expansive infrastructure, but the population it serves is limited.
Burying lines in cities is a matter of aesthetics and convenience, rather than necessity (see developed East Asia, where they often don't do that). It is precisely because of the high population density that burying lines is economical to do, because the cost is split among so many more people.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 22:29:25 No.1675336 Report

Quoted By: >>1675735

>>1675330
Because the money they use is stolen and the more they spend the more savings are devalued, thereby further concentrating power among the elites.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Overhead_power_lines_in_Dnipro,_ (...).jpg, 3MiB, 1808x2462

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 22:30:39 No.1675337 Report

Quoted By:

>>1675335
(You)

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 22:33:34 No.1675339 Report

Quoted By: >>1675343

>>1675332
> they can't afford the superior alternatives
Germany has a better automotive industry than the US.
They also have better expressways.
They also have a better passenger rail system.
They also have better mass transit systems.
They also have generally better airports.
In short, they have more, better transportation options, more freedom one could even say.
Only in the US does such a large segment of the population religiously defend having their options curtailed in transportation. Take for the granted the inferiority of their system while proclaiming its superiority.
Hell, China produces more cars than the US, and also found the space to build out HSR and its airports and its ports and its mass transit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 22:36:00 No.1675343 Report

Quoted By: >>1675348

>>1675339
Learn to read, then learn to think.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 22:39:14 No.1675347 Report

Quoted By: >>1675359 >>1676268

>>1675335
>But do that over hundreds of thousands if not millions of kilometers, and watch it add up.
>Do that, then come and fix it any time a storm or a falling branch knocks a line out, and watch it add up.
>Replace all that at some point, and watch it add up.
We already did and it's not cost-prohibitive. The primary cost of electricity is generation, not transmission.

>Much rural electrification was accomplished by government initiatives.
Yes during the New Deal when residential electricity was still a young industry.

>Burying lines in cities is a matter of aesthetics and convenience
Buried lines are inconvenient to build and maintain versus overhead lines.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 22:39:52 No.1675348 Report

Quoted By: >>1675352 >>1675360 >>1675362

>>1675343
If they can afford better transportation networks than the US, across a wider set of categories, than maybe it's America that's the pauper staring wistfully at the pearly gates.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 22:43:25 No.1675352 Report

Quoted By: >>1675360 >>1675362 >>1675363

>>1675348
You've learned to read. Now learn to think. He's a hint for you: the average income of a european after taxes is about $10,000. The average income of an American after taxes is about $40,000. The cost of purchasing and owning a vehicle in europe is literally several times higher than in America. Europeans use their public transit because their slavemasters like the roads to be free for themselves and deliberately price them out of access to it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 22:44:25 No.1675353 Report

Quoted By:

ITT: obsessed foreigners who once again prove they have no idea how things work in the US

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO wOXNYK167380.png, 210KiB, 1477x764

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 22:52:24 No.1675359 Report

Quoted By: >>1675365

>>1675347
>We already did and it's not cost-prohibitive.
Nobody said it was cost prohibitive, but it's not a trivial cost. Lines needed (and thus cost) is roughly a function of distance, not of population served.
>Buried lines are inconvenient to build and maintain versus overhead lines.
But they're not cost-prohibitive in cities, otherwise they wouldn't get buried, right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 22:53:04 No.1675360 Report

Quoted By:

>>1675348
>>1675352
Just to be clear, I am aware that it's closer to $20,000, however when you take into account the extra costs euros pay due to all the fuel/non-income taxes, then it comes out to about $10,000.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 22:54:38 No.1675362 Report

Quoted By:

>>1675348
>>1675352
Just to be clear, I am aware that it's closer to $20,000, however when you take into account the extra costs (relative to America) euros pay due to all the fuel/non-income taxes, then it comes out to about $10,000.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IFqkTv978021.png, 306KiB, 3078x1543

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 22:58:10 No.1675363 Report

Quoted By: >>1675364

>>1675352
>the average income of a european after taxes is about $10,000
Who are you grouping in "European?" Sure you can throw Poles, Romanians, and other post-commies in there to pad the numbers, but is that a relevant comparison?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:00:14 No.1675364 Report

Quoted By:

>>1675363
Pic related being for a household of two children, two earners at 100% of average earnings.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:01:24 No.1675365 Report

Quoted By: >>1675376

>>1675359
>Nobody said it was cost prohibitive, but it's not a trivial cost.
Your own graph answers why we can have cheap electricity nearly everywhere.

>But they're not cost-prohibitive in cities, otherwise they wouldn't get buried, right?
No shit.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO doa-program-2019.png, 11KiB, 822x484

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:02:12 No.1675366 Report

Quoted By: >>1675367 >>1675368

>>1674060
>...and yet they can't even grow their own crops
...And neither can the rural areas, judging by the massive subsidies that the feds have to pay farmers just to break even.

Why should city dwellers subsidize what amounts to social spending farmers who object to social spending on urbanites, when they could easily get their food from Thailand, Mexico or Colombia?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:03:37 No.1675367 Report

Quoted By: >>1675372

>>1675366
>judging by the massive subsidies that the feds have to pay farmers just to break even.
This was answered here: >>1675318

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:03:59 No.1675368 Report

Quoted By: >>1675370

>>1675366
>the last two years of state induced faggotry didn't happen
That's a wonderful timeline, but not the one we live in anon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:06:06 No.1675370 Report

Quoted By: >>1675371

>>1675368
>https://www.npr.org/2020/12/30/949329557/farmers-got-a-government-bailout-in-2020-even-those-who-didnt-need-it
Ah yes, 2020, when the federal government's socialism for farmers smashed all previous records adjusted for inflation, didn't happen.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:07:23 No.1675371 Report

Quoted By:

>>1675370
You are actually retarded... Perhaps even illiterate and retarded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:09:22 No.1675372 Report

Quoted By: >>1675373

>>1675367
I never argued that subsidies were about lowering cost, indeed it's to ensure the very opposite, to prevent overproduction and a race to the bottom in food prices.

But the fact is that the cities, most of which lie on the coast and are more than capable of importing from South America or Asia (or, in the west coast, both) are not dependent on the country. The reason the country should pay for infrastructure in the cities it doesn't need is the exact same as the reason the cities should pay for farmer's subsidies that they don't need.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:14:15 No.1675373 Report

Quoted By: >>1675374

>>1675372
You can't read. Try again: >>1675318

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:20:13 No.1675374 Report

Quoted By: >>1675389

>>1675373
I'm not disagreeing with you. But what you're saying does nothing to change my point.

Farmers in rural areas should support funds for the construction of transport in cities because both the direct influx of revenue from urban markets and the indirect benefits of government subsidies come disproportionately from urban areas. Profitable domestic agricultural production depends on having healthy urban consumer markets and (in the case of the United States) government benefits funded by urban populations.

Similarly, urbanites should support farmer subsidies and the maintenance of long, mostly unpopulated stretches of country roads that rural and suburban counties can't support on their own because domestic self-reliance and (more important for them) the current availability and thus affordability of food is dependent on rural infrastructure.

Both could theoretically survive without the other, the country would just be substantially poorer and the city would just be dependent on foreign growers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:21:52 No.1675376 Report

Quoted By: >>1675378

>>1675365
Again, note that that's per mile, nor per user. If you had a lot of miles and not very many users, then what happened was the Rural Electrification Administration came in and provided funding and other services to get electrification done, sending the share of rural households with electricity from 10 to 80% within two decades.
Its descendent still exists, and still funds rural projects.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:27:48 No.1675378 Report

Quoted By:

>>1675376
>Again, note that that's per mile
Yes. The costs per mile of overhead wire are very low, which is why power lines are ubiquitous and no one is waiting to get their home hooked up to the grid. The brunt of the REA's work was done over 75 years ago.

You can cope all you want, but it's not "too expensive" to run rural power and water lines.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:38:03 No.1675389 Report

Quoted By: >>1675394 >>1675397 >>1675400

>>1675374
Anon, your logic is bad. Let's imagine a world where US cities didn't exist and were all just thanossnapped overnight. The farmers overall would not give a shit. The worst that would happen is that there would be farm turnover and farming would be less intensive. Farmers still need to eat and like variety in their diet. Farmers still need fuel. Farmers still need steel. Farmers need heavy and medium industry, neither of which depend upon cities; they're often prohibited in cities. Light industry occurs in cities because it's profitable, but it's light industry; it can be done anywhere for relatively little set-up. The farm subsidies are for the benefit of non-farmers. If Argentina refuses to sell [insert here], the farmer doesn't care; they grow [insert here].

Let's abstract the issue somewhat. Let's say that there is a bowling ball subsidy. Let's say that only America and China make bowling balls. The US manufacturer doesn't care if china refuses to sell them to America, and the US consumers of bowling balls only experience a decrease in supply instead of a complete shortage. Let's pretend the subsidy doesn't exist. The bowling ball manufacturer went out of business decades ago and retooled to make basketballs or something; they don't care if china refuses to sell bowling balls; the US consumers care and would experience an outright shortage with no end in sight because no one would be stupid enough to spend money retooling to make bowling balls when a single whim from the chairman reversing the decision could bankrupt them.
Now replace bowling balls with something actually important like say... food, medicine, clothing, fuel, electricity, etc

Farmers don't benefit from increased economic output of cities. If a city is 10% more efficient, they don't buy 10% more food. Taxing non-city dwellers for city infrastructure only benefits city dwellers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:43:20 No.1675394 Report

Quoted By: >>1675399

>>1675389
This pol-tier economic analysis is hilariously retarded.

Human civilization has been synonymous with the rise of cities and if all cities were erased today, and everyone was a farmer, people would start putting buildings near each other for convenience, then other buildings near those for more convenience, etc.
The only way to prohibit that would be to zone everything strictly so that people can't do that, at which point you'd run into further economic problems and traffic jams.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:44:44 No.1675396 Report

Quoted By: >>1675403 >>1676268

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:44:50 No.1675397 Report

Quoted By: >>1675404 >>1675405

>>1675389
>The farmers overall would not give a shit
They absolutely would since the vast majority of their customer base would have just disappeared.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:47:02 No.1675399 Report

Quoted By:

>>1675394
All wealth is derived from food retard. This issue was solved in the 1700's decades before smith even put pen to paper. I understand you believe in marxoid 'economics', but we live in the real world.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:47:06 No.1675400 Report

Quoted By: >>1675411 >>1676268

>>1675389
Okay, let's imagine a world where the country didn't exist and US cities were just islands on a broad expanse of wasteland. The cities would also not give a shit. The worst that would happen is that prices would go up; urbanites still need fuel, but substantially less than the country and its massive expanses, and canada is next door. Cities need steel and industry, sure, much of which it would have no trouble importing from Canada and Japan/Germany respectively. Singapore does not starve because it doesn't have a countryside, and neither would San Francisco or New York.

>The farm subsidies are for the benefit of non-farmers.
Is that why the farming lobby panics every time all the non-farmers are threatened with reductions in farming subsidies?
>If Argentina refuses to sell [insert here], the farmer doesn't care; they grow [insert here].
Similarly, if the countryside decided not to sell an ounce of food to the city, the city would just shrug and get it from mexico like it already does.

>Farmers don't benefit from increased economic output of cities. If a city is 10% more efficient, they don't buy 10% more food.
They benefit from the increased demand of wealthier and more affluent urbanites.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:47:40 No.1675403 Report

Quoted By: >>1675406 >>1675409

>>1675396
Oops! You already posted this word for word, shill!
>>1674024

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:48:02 No.1675404 Report

Quoted By:

>>1675397
Poltards cannot into economics.

Rural America is dependent on subsidy from cities for its infrastructure

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:48:04 No.1675405 Report

Quoted By:

>>1675397
Now read the next sentence.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:48:36 No.1675406 Report

Quoted By: >>1675416

>>1675403
If only you had a better argument against it than "N-no, you're a Marxist"

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:49:04 No.1675409 Report

Quoted By: >>1675416

>>1675403
What makes you think I'm a shill? I'll continue to post it because it's fact.

If you think people who post facts are shills, you're too much of a snowflake for imageboards.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:49:58 No.1675411 Report

Quoted By: >>1675415

>>1675400
You aren't intelligent enough to understand why you're a sophist incapable of logic, so it isn't worth the effort to explain it to you. You're wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:50:09 No.1675412 Report

Quoted By:

Needs to include more money for transit. I'm tired of my tax dollars going to pay for highways in the middle of nowhere that barely get used.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:50:41 No.1675413 Report

Quoted By:

>>1673803
>one state getting half the railroad money
Should only get 2% of it for that boondoggle, let the state finance the rest

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:50:52 No.1675415 Report

Quoted By: >>1675417

>>1675411
It sounds more like you're just having trouble putting what you think counts for a valid argument into a full sentence.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:51:07 No.1675416 Report

Quoted By: >>1675418

>>1675406
I'm not that guy.

>>1675409
Stop shilling.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:51:48 No.1675417 Report

Quoted By: >>1675425 >>1675429

>>1675415
Well... when you ignore the concept of nations because it's inconvenient for you... I think it's safe to say you're either a faggot or not arguing in good faith.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:52:16 No.1675418 Report

Quoted By: >>1675424 >>1675427

>>1675416
I never started. You need to stop having an autistic meltdown when people post facts.

Believe it or not, there are people who argue with facts in this world. When they make claims, they actually back them up with evidence. It's a skill you need to learn.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:54:36 No.1675424 Report

Quoted By: >>1675428

>>1675418
Just try harder. Don't copy-paste the same thing you already posted in the same thread. If you hadn't been so lazy, you wouldn't be this mad right now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:55:10 No.1675425 Report

Quoted By:

>>1675417
>Well... when you ignore the concept of nations because it's inconvenient for you...
Is that why you're ignoring the benefits to the nation of a healthy domestic consumer market while championing a domestic production? It cuts both ways; if you want subsidies to protect agricultural production from the cold hand of the international free market you should also support subsidies to support the urban consumers lest they look to the international free market.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:55:51 No.1675427 Report

Quoted By: >>1675431

>>1675418
>NPC bugs out and copy/pastes faggotry like a useful idiot instead of thinking and producing a unique response.
Keep trying faggot, one day you might attain sentience.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1623713147051.jpg, 29KiB, 600x450

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:56:19 No.1675428 Report

Quoted By: >>1675433

>>1675424
You apparently didn't realize that rural America is dependent upon subsidy from the city centers for its infrastructure. You've been reminded.

All your posts run contrary to fact.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:56:33 No.1675429 Report

Quoted By:

>>1675417
>Well... when you ignore the concept of nations because it's inconvenient for you...
Is that why you're ignoring the benefits to the nation of a healthy domestic consumer market while championing healthy domestic agricultural production? It cuts both ways; if you want subsidies to protect agricultural production from the cold hand of the international free market you should also support subsidies to support the urban consumers lest they look to the international free market. Both work best when they support each other within a nation-state.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:57:27 No.1675431 Report

Quoted By: >>1676268

>>1675427
Hey why do you cagetrolls get your panties in a twist when people post facts? Why do you have such an adverse reaction to seeing the truth?

>Nationally, many of the states that receive the highest per-capita rates of federal investment have greater shares of their population in rural communities, such as South Carolina, North Dakota, and Louisiana. Meanwhile, many of the states that receive the lowest rates of federal investment have greater shares of their population in urban centers, including Delaware, Illinois, and Ohio.

>This pattern holds for state government spending, too. Studies in Minnesota, Georgia, and Wisconsin reveal that metropolitan areas contribute more to state coffers than they receive in education, infrastructure, and other public services investments. In Georgia, for instance, metropolitan Atlanta provides
61 percent of state revenue but receives just 46 percent of state investment.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Jun 2021 23:59:07 No.1675433 Report

Quoted By:

>>1675428
If you didn't make lazy copy-paste shillposts, you wouldn't be this upset. You brought this upon yourself.

>All your posts run contrary to fact.
It's beyond your comprehension that more than one person can reply to you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 00:16:44 No.1675445 Report

Quoted By: >>1676240

>Socialism for Rural America
>Great, wonderful, the Federal government has a duty to protect the countless farms and farmers of rural America, ensuring that they aren't bankrupted by foreign price-gouging, a strong domestic agricultural market ensures self-sufficiency and limits the power of foreign markets on the American consumer

>Socialism for Urban America
>Awful, a waste of taxpayer money, the federal government has no place spending tax money from (mostly) cities and the country on just cities, why support a strong domestic consumer market when (in the absence of urban consumption and capital) we could just regress into a farming/manufacturing economy with wages/standards of living far too high for our balance of trade

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 00:28:22 No.1675451 Report

Quoted By: >>1675458

>>1674175
>The service economy faggots that keep Instabook and Reeeter alive are the ones doing absolutely anything of use for the economy and not the farmers or the material goods workers.
No.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO TradeDeficit_fig1.jpg, 88KiB, 900x623

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 00:41:31 No.1675458 Report

Quoted By: >>1675462

>>1675451
If you removed the service economy and just left the agricultural/manufacturing economies the US would have been in debt decades ago just on the trade balance. Foreign capital, talent and investment all flow into the US primarily through the service economy.
>https://www.bea.gov/news/2021/us-international-trade-goods-and-services-march-2021

That capital inflow is what's funding private equity investment into R&D, research and the continued improvement of AgriMark technology in Rural America, and what is funding the continued development of automation and the revival of the American manufacturing sector.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 00:45:22 No.1675462 Report

Quoted By: >>1675474 >>1675637 >>1675644

>>1675458
>If you removed the service economy and just left the agricultural/manufacturing economies the US would have been in debt decades ago just on the trade balance.
This is more due to the deliberate destruction of the goods industry in America than its inherent infeasibility.
The US is one of only six nations in the world that (at least for now, this likely won't be the case in 20 years due to political mismanagement and the complete selling-out of Americans) feed and power itself using only things within its own borders. We're more than capable of strongarming ourselves into being a manufacturing superpower again, we just don't largely due to service industry shills running interference politically.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 00:58:12 No.1675474 Report

Quoted By: >>1675477

>>1675462
>This is more due to the deliberate destruction of the goods industry in America than its inherent infeasibility.
Certainly, but the availability of goods and our current standard of living was and still is the result of the faustian bargain that moved manufacturing abroad. The fact is that the first step to rectifying that now is to catch up in R&D and increase the process of automation so that it is no longer cheaper to manufacture in Vietnam than it is in the United States, and to do that you will need the service economy, private investment and academic research. And even when American manufacturing returns to what it once was, it's still going to be investment from cities and academic researchers in universities that will drive innovation. Even with subsidies the average US farmers is only barely breaking even; there's not enough capital to make a silicon valley in nebraska.

>The US is one of only six nations in the world that (at least for now, this likely won't be the case in 20 years due to political mismanagement and the complete selling-out of Americans) feed and power itself using only things within its own borders.
True, but it certainly will not do so without the capital from Urban America.
>We're more than capable of strongarming ourselves into being a manufacturing superpower again,
Agreed
>we just don't largely due to service industry shills running interference politically.
[citation needed]
It was the agriculture lobby that was complaining the most when Trump's tariffs on China led to the Chinese looking to Brazil for Basedbeans and wasting an entire crop, and it was American manufacturers who willingly moved their factories abroad. Blame your own industry's betrayals for your current situation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 00:58:33 No.1675475 Report

Quoted By:

Does it specify which rail and transit projects the money goes to?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 00:59:34 No.1675477 Report

Quoted By:

>>1675474
for fuck's sakes I forgot about that filter, s o y beans.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO us-metro-areas-by-gdp.jpg, 411KiB, 1199x653

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 02:50:19 No.1675511 Report

Quoted By: >>1675576

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/3d-map-the-u-s-cities-with-the-highest-economic-output/

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 06:28:18 No.1675576 Report

Quoted By:

>>1675511
Phoenix is ~5th in terms of population... is it really retired people, etc?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO oBZdcR818778.png, 180KiB, 1978x1585

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 10:27:05 No.1675637 Report

Quoted By: >>1675644 >>1675648

>>1675462
The US has no conception of industrial policy other than as glorified welfare, and consequently the recipients of that welfare are not globally competitive. US automakers, for example, were not undercut by unskilled labour slaving away in German, Japanese, or Italian sweatshops, they were beaten by being unable to have competitive products and production processes. Even their partial rebound was limited in fundamentally improving competitiveness; when GM went bankrupt it was the #1 car manufacturer by sales volume. In the case of steel, analysts were warning in the 1960s that US manufacturers weren't investing in next generation technologies, and would face business difficulties as a result.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1880688?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
If you look at the data, US imports as a share of GDP are not especially high; exports are what's lagging. Other advanced countries are highly competitive in the export market. South Korea, Japan, Germany, Switzerland all have a trade surplus with China.
But US has an unhelpful obsession with jobs, which strongly distorts its evaluation of what actually happened.
The US is largely incapable of admitting that the problem was largely internal to the US manufacturing system, and not the mere result of "Benedict Arnold CEOs" or globalists.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO LBI1GB074576.png, 351KiB, 1874x1660

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 10:45:27 No.1675644 Report

Quoted By: >>1675648 >>1676268

>>1675637
>>1675462
The primary cause for changes in steel employment, for example, was the rise of the Basic Oxygen Process, the Electric Arc Furnace, and the minimill, which increased productivity and efficiency while reducing employment needs. With time and widespread adoption they produced a better American steel industry; normally cause for celebration except the US was rooted at all levels to evaluating the industry in terms of employment. This outdated view dovetailed with outdated management to drive a far more negative view of the transformation, and misdiagnose what had happened and what needed to be done.
Notably, despite having greater physical and social infrastructure for steel production, even in the US the legacy steel producers (both firms and states) showed no advantage or special compulsion in incorporating the new technologies and practices, opening the way for new actors to take market share.
Stronger import restrictions would've only propped up inefficient producers, slowed the transformation, and inflicted higher prices/lower quality upon steel consumers, who vastly outnumbered producers.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/historical/frbclev/wp/frbclv_wp1986-06.pdf

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO gIr7Nd382464.png, 196KiB, 1972x1581

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 10:56:03 No.1675648 Report

Quoted By: >>1676268

>>1675637
>>1675644
Note in that graph that even before the low-income countries came online as parts of the manufacturing supply chain, US exports were far closer to its advanced competitors than population alone would predict.
Some of that is geography, some of that is the size of the internal market affecting incentives, some of it is tapping greater unfulfilled potential, but some of it is the beginnings of competitiveness problems.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 13:42:43 No.1675732 Report

Quoted By: >>1675809

>>1673959
Infrastructure brings more opportunities and more money.
>>1674249
Only because subhuman hicks clog up roads with their rustbuckets

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 14:00:47 No.1675735 Report

Quoted By:

>>1675307
He is a retard.
>>1675336
Stealing from a thief doesn't count.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 16:15:56 No.1675809 Report

Quoted By: >>1675841 >>1675852 >>1676186 >>1676187 >>1676231

>>1675732
>Infrastructure brings more opportunities and more money.

Maybe it does to the cities. But more public transportation does not help rural areas at all. You miss the entire argument. Why should someone who will never use have to pay for some cities public transit? Tax the people in the cities, they're the ones using it, not some corn farmer in rural Iowa.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 3F02EE57-7F60-45A2-8877-42CC6932 (...).jpg, 641KiB, 750x1107

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 17:40:55 No.1675840 Report

Quoted By: >>1675842 >>1676471

Highways don’t charge a toll so they don’t pay for themselves.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 17:44:15 No.1675841 Report

Quoted By:

>>1675809
Rural infrastructure is mostly funded by cash from the cities. If we stopped the gibs, rural areas would lose even more population than they have been the last decade. This is just cities getting to keep some of their cash and hopefully they can stop hemorrhaging money on highways.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 17:45:12 No.1675842 Report

Quoted By:

>>1675840
How much rail do you think you're going to get for $261 million?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 17:51:10 No.1675849 Report

Quoted By:

Don’t cagetrolls ever get tired of being proven wrong?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 17:52:39 No.1675852 Report

Quoted By: >>1675883 >>1675897 >>1676268

>>1675809
>Why should someone who will never use have to pay for some cities public transit?
Why should someone who won't be bankrupted by grain price fluctuations or weather changes pay for farm subsidies?

>inb4 your food
We don't need your food.
>inb4 muh self-sufficienct America
Self-sufficiency comes from both strong domestic production and strong domestic consumption. Otherwise you'll just be sobbing because China isn't buying your soibeans again. We subsidize you through agricultural subsidies, you subsidize us so we buy your produce.

>w-we can survive without you
And we you, but in both cases our standards of living take a plunge.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO strawman-4chan.jpg, 155KiB, 333x500

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 18:59:40 No.1675883 Report

Quoted By: >>1675898

>>1675852

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 19:36:45 No.1675897 Report

Quoted By: >>1675900

>>1675852
see: >>1675318

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 19:37:43 No.1675898 Report

Quoted By:

>>1675883
You can just read the first part, just felt like addressing in advance the counterarguments your like-minded compatriots brought up.

Tl;Dr Urban America will never need or use an agricultural subsidy, so Rural America can stop being a bitch about urban infrastructure it will never need or use.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 19:41:59 No.1675900 Report

Quoted By:

>>1675897
Already addressed in the very post you're quoting, the need for a domestic production capacity is matched by the need for domestic consumption capacity. Infrastructure that makes the urban population better and greater consoomers ensures that American farmers are not unduly exposed to Chinese/foreign price manopulation/trade wars. Urban infrastructure accomplishes the same things as Rural farm subsidies, strengthening the United States.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 29 Jun 2021 20:00:44 No.1675906 Report

Quoted By:

>>1675318
>Marxists are a threat to America
>but I don't want to fund improvements that would help fellow Americans buy more of my produce and keep American money in American hands
>I'd rather keep selling to the largest Marxist country on the planet and get fucked in the ass when said country stops buying our produce over American tariffs
Congratulations, you bedded a Marxist to spite a leftist, what's the next part of your master plan?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 03:38:59 No.1676186 Report

Quoted By: >>1676217

>>1675809
> But more public transportation does not help rural areas at all.
It enhances economic and social conditions in cities, which generates more goods and services that rural people buy, and creates more demand for food, leading to higher rural incomes.
That's the reason why if an American farmer and an Indian farmer grow the same amount of grain, the American will have a far higher living standard.
Your question is as stupid as asking "Why should a New Yorker be forced to pay for rural electrification?"
And if they did do a system like that, underpopulated rural areas would lose out the most.
Just hilarious how the ones always asking why they should have to pay for stuff are the ones who would lose the most under a "fairer" system.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 03:44:00 No.1676187 Report

Quoted By:

>>1675809
Yes it does help you fucking moron. Bus services in rural areas are really important.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 04:35:41 No.1676217 Report

Quoted By: >>1676224

>>1676186
>Why should a New Yorker be forced to pay for rural electrification?

Because they have way more fucking money than someone that lives in the countryside.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1487442229153.png, 194KiB, 500x395

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 04:51:43 No.1676224 Report

Quoted By: >>1676228

>>1676217
Nigga you just went full marxist. How are you going to literally call for wealth redistribution and then turn around and then complain about measures to strengthen American consumption of American goods being leftist?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 05:01:54 No.1676228 Report

Quoted By: >>1676232 >>1676233 >>1676239

>>1676224
Huh? I think subsidies are cool too. There’s nothing wrong with wealth redistribution, it happens on a huge scale already, I’d rather my wealth be redistributed to farmers to keep prices down or neglected rural communities rather than checks to keep the local crackhead alive at all costs.

The more I hear New Urbanists talk, the more I think it’s pro-corporate, libertarianism propaganda to indoctrinate the youth.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 05:07:23 No.1676230 Report

Quoted By: >>1676236

Also like the point of wealth redistribution is to take money from coastal elites that have it in excess and use it to improve communities that don’t have the money to improve their own communities, or make food cheaper for everyone.

It’s fucking insane that are genuinely trying to convince us that people in less developed communities should have their wealth redistributed to go to the New York subway. But hey, it’s the coastal elites writing the laws, so what did you expect to happen!

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 40602492-the-cargo-containers-tr (...).jpg, 185KiB, 1300x866

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 05:08:45 No.1676231 Report

Quoted By: >>1676401

>>1675809
Think, anon, think.
How do you think the food grown by American Farmers gets to the people who pay for it? Whether it's Pork going to Taiwan or Almonds going to Seattle, the supply chains that keep American farms profitable have to pass through urban infrastructure, whether to distribution centers in American cities or to port facilities on the city outskirts to be sent downriver or abroad. Farmers might not use those roads but their produce sure does, and everyone down the line from farm to mouth benefits from reducing transit times. You're talking spoilage due to detours from dilapidated roads or delays from traffic jams by commuters who could have reduced traffic by taking trains, or money wasted keeping stuff in cold storage until those delayed orders arrive. All of those costs hurt farmers upstream, both in reduced demand and decreased price competitiveness compared to foreign goods.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 05:09:35 No.1676232 Report

Quoted By: >>1676234

>>1676228
>neglected rural communities rather than checks to keep the local crackhead alive at all costs.
Then there's this weird thing where these types plead victimhood and a reprieve from uncaring social "betters" while spitting vitriol at the groups they perceive to be lower than themselves.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 05:12:59 No.1676233 Report

Quoted By: >>1676235

>>1676228
>I’d rather my wealth be redistributed to farmers to keep prices down
see >>1675318
In fact, agricultural subsidies since their inception during the depression are meant to have the opposite effect, to prevent American farmers from growing too much and going under due to the subsequent drop in prices, and to protect them from much more price-competitive central and south american rivals.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 05:13:09 No.1676234 Report

Quoted By:

>>1676232
Just having a bit of a laff, m8. My point still stands!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 05:14:24 No.1676235 Report

Quoted By: >>1676240

>>1676233
Well like I said, I don’t mind my wealth being redistributed to them so that they can have happy productive lives

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 05:15:38 No.1676236 Report

Quoted By: >>1676237 >>1676268

>>1676230
> that don’t have the money to improve their own communities,
If there's not a significant economic basis (and in most cases, there's unlikely to be one), maybe moving ought to be considered. It's how the USA was peopled, and even today millions a year move in from abroad.
> it’s the coastal elites writing the laws
Through the Senate, the archaic House seat allocation process, and the electoral college, the US political system is disproportionately weighted towards rural voters. Those voters aren't capable of developing an effective political platform, settling instead for any number of charlatans playing up cultural wars, but that's another story.
> should have their wealth redistributed to go to the New York subway
Federal tax goes into a common pool, then gets spent. If you want, you can imaging all rural tax revenue goes to either common (like defense) spending, or specific rural programmes until it's exhausted.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 05:16:55 No.1676237 Report

Quoted By:

>>1676236
This is why you don’t try to argue with libertarians

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 05:20:46 No.1676239 Report

Quoted By: >>1676241 >>1676268 >>1677100

>>1676228
>I’d rather my wealth be redistributed to farmers to keep prices down or neglected rural communities rather than checks to keep the local crackhead alive at all costs.
Funny you mention that anon....
>https://www.fb.org/issues/other/rural-opioid-epidemic/
>Three in four farmers and farm workers (74 percent) are or have been directly impacted by opioid abuse, either by knowing someone, having a family member addicted, having taken an illegal opioid or having dealt with addiction themselves.
>Rural adults are largely unaware that rural communities are impacted the most by the opioid crisis (31 percent).
The rural counties are paying to keep their crackheads alive too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 05:22:09 No.1676240 Report

Quoted By: >>1676242

>>1676235
see >>1675445
Marxism for me but not for thee as always.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 05:23:14 No.1676241 Report

Quoted By: >>1676243

>>1676239
I wouldn’t mind some rich New York guys wealth being redistributed to pay for support systems for them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 05:24:21 No.1676242 Report

Quoted By: >>1676246

>>1676240
Idc about Marxism, I don’t make enough money for me to be affected by it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 05:25:17 No.1676243 Report

Quoted By: >>1676245

>>1676241
And it is. See >>1674024
The cities already pay disproportionately for rural crackheads, so don't try to deny improvements that would benefit both urban consumers and rural producers over some strawman about drug addiction being unique to cities.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 05:26:04 No.1676244 Report

Quoted By: >>1676246

Damn, the liberatarian convinced me. Rural Americans should pay for quilted leather seats on the New York metro.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 05:27:13 No.1676245 Report

Quoted By: >>1676248

>>1676243
Brooo it was a fucking joke chill you’re on 4chan

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 05:27:25 No.1676246 Report

Quoted By: >>1676247

>>1676242
You sure don't care about equality either when you sweep your own drug addiction problems under the rug to deny improvements to cities that already receive less than their fair share over what is a national opioid crisis.

>>1676244
>quilted seats
>new york metro
See this is the kind of strawman I'm talking about.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 05:28:14 No.1676247 Report

Quoted By: >>1676248

>>1676246
You’re actually just autistic lmao

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 6kGliTj.jpg, 52KiB, 349x642

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 05:29:03 No.1676248 Report

Quoted By: >>1676249

>>1676245
>>1676247
>make a dumb argument
>get proven wrong
>joke's on them I was only pretending to be retarded
Oldest trick in the book.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 05:29:56 No.1676249 Report

Quoted By: >>1676251

>>1676248
Damn I lost the debate. You’re right, we should tax the poor more.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 05:32:21 No.1676251 Report

Quoted By: >>1676253 >>1676254

>>1676249
>another strawman
Are you going to say you were only joking when it's pointed out that the bill was meant to be funded by an increase in the corporate tax rate on multimillion dollar corporations (you know, the people with all the money)?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 05:33:32 No.1676253 Report

Quoted By:

>>1676251
I honestly didn’t read any of the posts

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 05:34:35 No.1676254 Report

Quoted By:

>>1676251
Wait what bill?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 05:37:07 No.1676255 Report

Quoted By:

>>1673812
CAHSR cost literally half of bezos’ net worth (so far)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 06:12:54 No.1676268 Report

Quoted By: >>1676293 >>1676357

>>1674024
>>1674358
>>1675309
>>1675347
>>1675396
>>1675400
>>1675431
>>1675644
>>1675648
>>1675852
>>1676236
>>1676239

what’s with the /pol/ adderrall heads on here

this board used to be comfy

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 08:21:21 No.1676293 Report

Quoted By:

>>1676268
This board used to be comfy before 9 out of 10 threads were about bike faggotry

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 12:56:01 No.1676357 Report

Quoted By: >>1676381 >>1676382

>>1676268
You know damn well /pol/ is on the other side of the argument and wouldn't want a cent of federal money spent on cities if they could help it.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 7BD524BD-492E-484B-A3BF-35ECAB0F (...).jpg, 371KiB, 750x973

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 13:15:27 No.1676373 Report

Quoted By: >>1676381

I remember a year ago when the trolls were swearing up and down that cities were OVER and no one was gonna live in cities anymore.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 13:41:40 No.1676381 Report

Quoted By: >>1676385

>>1676373
New York is New York, the eternal exception. Trying to base anything in other parts of the country on New York never works.

>>1676357
You need a break from politics

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 13:45:47 No.1676382 Report

Quoted By: >>1676385

>>1676357
>wouldn't want a cent of federal money spent on cities if they could help it.

You’re the one constantly saying how cities generate way more tax revenue than they use, so it only makes sense that that revenue gets redistributed to areas that can’t generate as much tax revenue. It makes perfect sense, idk why you think that’s a bad thing

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 13:52:16 No.1676385 Report

Quoted By: >>1676386 >>1676403

>>1676382
I'm the one constantly saying that it's already being redistributed to those areas as Federal subsidies, and that's fine. What's not fine is farmers (and you) bitching about cities getting any share of federal funds at all when it helps both farmers and city-dwellers.

>>1676381
Not an argument.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 13:53:43 No.1676386 Report

Quoted By: >>1676388

>>1676385
But if cities are generating so much more revenue why would they need tax revenue from anywhere but themselves?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 13:58:54 No.1676388 Report

Quoted By: >>1676391

>>1676386
>But if cities are generating so much more revenue
They generate proportionally more than the country, not more than they have anything to do with. Think, anon, think.
>why would they need tax revenue from anywhere but themselves?
Are you unaware of how taxation works? Much of the money city-dwellers generate is taken by the feds and state and fed to rural counties.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 14:03:21 No.1676391 Report

Quoted By: >>1676393

>>1676388
Hmmm. Maybe we should lower the taxes on cities then and allow them to build up an improvements fund.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 14:07:19 No.1676392 Report

Quoted By: >>1676395

>>1673793
How are they gonna pay for all this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 14:07:23 No.1676393 Report

Quoted By: >>1676394

>>1676391
I don't see legislators representing rural interests on both the national and state level being okay with federal/state tax exemptions for cities, so redistributing federal tax revenues in a more equitable fashion that benefits both American Consumers and American Producers will have to do.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 14:10:36 No.1676394 Report

Quoted By: >>1676397

>>1676393
So you’re saying the status quo is just fine?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 14:11:01 No.1676395 Report

Quoted By: >>1676396

>>1676392
Democrats wanted to reduce the corporate tax cuts made in the previous administration. Republicans complained that it would hurt middle-class businesses.

Republicans wanted to institute a gas tax. Democrats complained that it would hurt poorer Americans who rely on cars to get around the most.

I think they're still hashing shit out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 14:12:11 No.1676396 Report

Quoted By:

>>1676395
What do you think they’re gonna pick

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 14:13:02 No.1676397 Report

Quoted By: >>1676399

>>1676394
No, the infrastructure bill (which will help reconstruct rural roads and bridges as well as fund transit and infrastructure improvements in cities) is more equitable and would match the existing federal subsidies already being paid to farmers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 14:14:05 No.1676399 Report

Quoted By: >>1676401

>>1676397
But why should farmers and people in rural areas be taxed to pay for transit in cities?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 14:20:47 No.1676401 Report

Quoted By: >>1676406

>>1676399
see >>1676231
Even if farmers don't personally use urban transit, agricultural exports go by ship, truck and rail, all through urban infrastructure. A dedicated commuter rail network would reduce delays in freight delivery. Improved bus and rail networks will take car-dependent commuters who would otherwise clog up roads and make it easier for long-haul drivers to bring their produce to port facilities and reduce the time produce is spent idling in cold storage.
Reductions in storage, transportation and fuel costs will lead to better profits for farmers upstream.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 14:24:28 No.1676403 Report

Quoted By:

>>1676385
>I'm the one constantly saying that it's already being redistributed to those areas as Federal subsidies,
I’ve been saying that too. Anyone who knows anything about American infrastructure will tell you that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 14:27:27 No.1676406 Report

Quoted By: >>1676414 >>1676418

>>1676401
>Improved bus and rail networks will take car-dependent commuters who would otherwise clog up roads and make it easier for long-haul drivers to bring their produce to port facilities and reduce the time produce is spent idling in cold storage

This seems like a stretch to me. I doubt they'll see any benefit from 5 train lines' worth of their money.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 14:43:08 No.1676414 Report

Quoted By: >>1676418

>>1676406
Well there's been academic research on the impact of traffic on supply chains
>https://www.intechopen.com/books/supply-chain-management-new-perspectives/traffic-congestion-effects-on-supply-chains-accounting-for-behavioral-elements-in-planning-and-econo
>All three regional studies (Chicago, Vancouver and Oregon) calculated employment and income growth impacts of alternative scenarios involving rates of traffic congestion growth. The estimated impacts calculated by TREDIS varied by industry and over time, but in each region they represented total GDP impacts that are quite substantial – ranging from US $476 million/year in Vancouver to US $2.4 billion/year in Chicago.
The paper discusses how all the small factors in urban infrastructure can drive up the cost of supply chains. Reductions in cost (ultimately passed onto the customers) will improve the competitiveness of American-grown products against foreign competitors and increase profits/tax revenues (which also disproportionately benefit farmers).

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 2098062251_b3b8afd2ab_o.jpg, 435KiB, 1000x423

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 14:50:03 No.1676418 Report

Quoted By: >>1676419

>>1676414
>>1676406
Here's also a report from the USDA on the impacts of traffic and congestion on Farmers
>https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Main_Highway_Report.pdf
>Poor infrastructure condition and congestion pose increasingly significant challenges to the agriculture industry. Poor road conditions contribute to higher operations costs by lowering fuel economy and raising maintenance costs for vehicles (Figure 8). Road congestion imposes labor, fuel, and delay costs, ultimately driving up costs and reducing competitiveness. These cost increases could then raise the transportation share of the food dollar from 3-4% to a higher value.
>Both private shippers and public agencies identified traffic congestion around common freight destinations, such as ports, intermodals, and grain elevators, as a major issue making the last mile of a truck trip less efficient and more costly
>Destinations are often located in urban areas or busy multimodal transfer points where congestion delays are common.
Hell, even going back to
>I doubt they'll see any benefit from 5 train lines' worth of their money
Even five buses, nevermind 5 train lines, would have a tangible benefit on congestion, see pic related. Leaving a bicycle aside, just a single bus can take 20-30 cars off the road, reducing the congestion in that last mile for American truckers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 14:51:43 No.1676419 Report

Quoted By: >>1676422

>>1676418
That’s assuming people ride the bus, but if you just make lanes into bus only lanes that’s just gonna make traffic worse

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO BAAFBA3D-7D08-43E3-9DF3-B16021D3 (...).jpg, 267KiB, 1284x696

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 14:54:15 No.1676420 Report

Quoted By: >>1676422

Is there any concrete data that building transit reduces traffic?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 927AB207-2BBE-466A-A5B3-6595CD88 (...).jpg, 738KiB, 1284x1491

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 14:55:15 No.1676421 Report

Quoted By:

Building light rail literally induces demand for cars.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 14:59:32 No.1676422 Report

Quoted By: >>1676423

>>1676419
Untrue.
>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3141/2034-12
>After priority treatments were introduced, the number of vehicles using the main road was reduced. Also, queue-length and jam-length measurements showed signs of easing of traffic congestion, and travel times of general vehicles were improved.

>>1676420
Yes.
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0386111214601424
>Until 1996 bus use the most predominant travel mode in Seoul, however the share of bus trips decreased remarkably from 1990 to 1997 due to the fast growing subway supply and the increased number of private vehicles. However, after the regular bus lanes were extended, the bus service improved and thus, the buses again became the predominant travel mode since 1998.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 15:02:26 No.1676423 Report

Quoted By: >>1676424

>>1676422
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.101.6.2616
>We find no evidence that the provision of public transportation affects VKT. We conclude that increased provision of roads or public transit is unlikely to relieve congestion. (JEL R41, R48)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 15:07:59 No.1676424 Report

Quoted By: >>1676425

>>1676423
>2011
https://www.nber.org/papers/w18757
>We test this prediction with data from a sudden strike in 2003 by Los Angeles transit workers. Estimating a regression discontinuity design, we find that average highway delay increases 47% when transit service ceases. This effect is consistent with our model's predictions and many times larger than earlier estimates, which have generally concluded that public transit provides minimal congestion relief. We find that the net benefits of transit systems appear to be much larger than previously believed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 15:09:54 No.1676425 Report

Quoted By: >>1676429 >>1676432

>>1676424
No ones saying we should just shut down all transit like what happened there, but whether it reduces traffic is very inconclusive, and realistically it probably has no effect.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 15:18:45 No.1676429 Report

Quoted By: >>1676432

>>1676425
You're quoting a 2011 paper, and research/scholarship does not exist in a vacuum. You could also quote papers from 1550 contending (accurately) that the heliocentric model of the time was incorrect and that thus the sun revolves around the earth.

There have been many studies since then:
>https://www.intechopen.com/books/urban-transport-systems/the-effects-of-urban-public-transit-investment-on-traffic-congestion-and-air-quality
>Our results in Ref. [5] suggest that investments in public transit may have a co-benefit of congestion reduction. Thus, when analyzing potential public transit projects using a cost-benefit analysis framework, interactions between auto and transit users should be taken into account

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 15:23:29 No.1676432 Report

Quoted By:

>>1676429
>>1676425
Here's another, even more recent:
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-benefits-of-public-transport-Buchanan/5cebb7a5b51b04f7cb806bb46bf6c932173e935c
>Some economic analyses have even suggested that building more roads doesn’t help, nor does more mass transit. New traffic always emerges to take the place of any free road space.
>New research tells a very different story — that public transport is among the most direct ways to reduce congestion, if done in the right way. The key is making sure that the layout of a public transport system makes access to mass transit easy for a high fraction of people in any city.
>The figures fall almost exactly on the straight-line prediction, apart from a small scatter. Across these cities, the fraction of people driving to work decreases in direct proportion to the availability of mass transit, as estimated in this case by the fraction of the population living within one kilometre of a transit station.
This is based on data derived empirically from actual google maps average driving speeds, which wasn't available during the 2011 study:
>One might wonder: why did no one discover this before? Probably, Barthelemy told me, because the required data didn’t exist. Making quantitative estimates to test the model required modern data sources including TomTom navigation data and average driving speeds estimated from Google maps.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 15:34:34 No.1676440 Report

Quoted By:

This paper provided a more nuanced view:
>https://academic.oup.com/joeg/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jeg/lbaa037/6056662?redirectedFrom=PDF
Its findings are that some forms of public transit can reduce congestion, and some don't. investments in Buses and Metro lines does reduce congestion, Trams don't. But I don't think anyone plans to bring trams back to American cities as they are used in Europe.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Jun 2021 16:33:11 No.1676471 Report

Quoted By: >>1676937

>>1675840
highways are paid for by gas taxes

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 06:25:31 No.1676790 Report

Quoted By:

>>1674183
Those suburbs are just as sad as the inner city. The only places on that map that are happy are totally rural

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 5f4cv3.jpg, 72KiB, 500x500

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 11:07:47 No.1676835 Report

Quoted By: >>1676852

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 11:22:28 No.1676842 Report

Quoted By:

>>1674278
Runway and taxiway maintenance.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 11:41:41 No.1676852 Report

Quoted By:

>>1676835
SUS

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO AD3145F4-4678-4A9C-8703-20C15C92 (...).jpg, 515KiB, 1284x997

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 13:42:05 No.1676895 Report

Quoted By: >>1676896 >>1676902

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 13:45:36 No.1676896 Report

Quoted By: >>1676899

>>1676895
cool, a bunch of text without a source

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 13:51:41 No.1676899 Report

Quoted By:

>>1676896
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/urbanisation-and-incidence-of-psychosis-and-depression/AF3FDF51E9DA192097BEF153D9A02148

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 14:04:47 No.1676902 Report

Quoted By: >>1676903

>>1676895
That's because all the mental people in rural areas are hopped up on opioids or have an hero'd.
>https://www.addictioncenter.com/community/substance-abuse-rural-vs-urban/
>They found that rural participants were almost five times more likely than their urban counterparts to have misused prescription opioids
>https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2017/p1005-rural-suicide-rates.html
>Overall, suicide death rates for rural counties (17.32 per 100,000 people) were higher than medium/small metropolitan counties (14.86) and large metropolitan counties (11.92).
>https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2017/p1005-rural-suicide-rates.html

>I-I'm not depressed, I'm only taking a 12g lobotomy for moral reasons
Maybe if rural Americans were willing to admit and get help for their depression they wouldn't be nearly 50% more likely than inner-city folk to off themselves.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 14:08:18 No.1676903 Report

Quoted By: >>1676910

>>1676902
Well yeah rural areas probably suck too, that’s why suburbs are perfect

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 14:11:14 No.1676904 Report

Quoted By:

>>1674190
>>1674191

>”Life is significantly less happy in urban areas”, the paper concluded.

>>1674193

Suburbs stay winning

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO F618F4B5-6134-459A-9560-8800FFAF (...).jpg, 577KiB, 1181x1279

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 14:12:16 No.1676905 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 41F95568-7BAB-4A3E-B884-920F4854 (...).jpg, 916KiB, 1284x1439

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 14:14:11 No.1676906 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 14:15:01 No.1676907 Report

Quoted By:

we appear to be at that stage in an argument where people are posting random screenshots at each other. stop it

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 05B34820-2854-4218-9231-927F57F1 (...).jpg, 270KiB, 1284x390

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 14:15:37 No.1676909 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 14:15:47 No.1676910 Report

Quoted By:

>>1676903
Well, that's small metro in the suicide study. They're better than rural areas on suicide but worse than inner cities. As for drugs, suburbs struggle with opiates, particularly Heroin, more than cities, with over 90% of heroin and opiate users living in suburbs, small towns and rural areas.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO E217AFD9-1891-4F6F-BD98-BF120D4A (...).jpg, 891KiB, 1284x1973

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 14:16:39 No.1676911 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 0FC7892F-F642-4B23-98DF-F0FC0E56 (...).jpg, 455KiB, 1284x1153

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 14:17:41 No.1676912 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO F83EFA9D-EE96-40BA-985F-9493BC2F (...).jpg, 474KiB, 1236x1545

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 14:18:50 No.1676913 Report

Quoted By: >>1676914

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 14:20:35 No.1676914 Report

Quoted By:

>>1676913
I, too, look forwards to the expansion of bike lanes and cycling infrastructure in our cities.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 15:21:22 No.1676935 Report

Quoted By:

I'm guessing this cagetroll phoneposts because his home IP was banned for spamming/flooding.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Road-Funding-19-oct-f-01.png, 257KiB, 1355x1159

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 15:24:02 No.1676937 Report

Quoted By:

>>1676471
LOL nope. Gas taxes don't nearly cover the cost of highways.

https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 19:31:18 No.1677045 Report

Quoted By:

>>1673841
City slickers outnumber you 10 to 1 and keep your faggot farmers alive with subsidies

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 20:45:36 No.1677100 Report

Quoted By: >>1677118

>>1676239
This is actually because a lot of rural doctors are trash and will sling basically heroin at you to keep you from having to visit them another time for your back issues.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1620876749799.jpg, 25KiB, 266x177

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 21:06:36 No.1677118 Report

Quoted By:

>>1677100
Sorry to hear, anon; here in the city we just self-medicate with Crack cocaine.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 22:03:38 No.1677158 Report

Quoted By: >>1677925

>>1673959
why do we even wonder why american infrastructure is so shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Jul 2021 22:30:16 No.1677165 Report

Quoted By:

>>1675307
This, it has always been America first in US foreign policy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Jul 2021 04:18:38 No.1677271 Report

Quoted By: >>1677273

>>1674138
>>1674060

You do know that rural areas grow crops in exchange for money right? They're not giving it to the cities from the kindness of their hearts. It's almost as if rural and urban areas depend on one another.

Don't conflate subsistence farming with cash-cropping and industrialized farming. Subsistence farming is a very difficult life and you're free to move to Africa if you want that experience.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Jul 2021 04:44:47 No.1677273 Report

Quoted By: >>1677803

>>1677271
>You do know that rural areas grow crops in exchange for money right? They're not giving it to the cities from the kindness of their hearts.
No shit Sherlock. The people who complain about food subsidies probably don't know what the qualifying factors for most of them are. It may surprise a lot of people ITT that most of those subsidies are only for select crops on select years depending on what the harvest looks like.
>It's almost as if rural and urban areas depend on one another.
That was kind of my point. The "OMG CASH FLOW" crowd in this thread ignore the value that rural regions provide to their own economies every bit as quickly as the "OMG MUH CROPS" crowd ignore who pays for their roads. These problem children are those who think their region is "better" because either a)they finance more of the state budget or b)they supply critical industries. Both are necessary for an economy to run.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Jul 2021 04:11:11 No.1677803 Report

Quoted By:

>>1677273
>The "OMG CASH FLOW" crowd in this thread ignore the value that rural regions provide to their own economies every bit as quickly as the "OMG MUH CROPS" crowd ignore who pays for their roads.
They've already mentioned that both cities and the countryside could survive independently of the other, just that they'd be economically stunted.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Jul 2021 04:14:46 No.1677804 Report

Quoted By: >>1677811

I've known 2 farming families in Florida. Both of them were rich as hell and desu, they both told me they get a shitton of money from the government.
For the record I support farm subsidies but cities generates way more tax revenue than rural or suburban areas. If the federal government decides to finally invest in decent transit, that's just cities getting some of their money back.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Jul 2021 04:49:51 No.1677811 Report

Quoted By: >>1677813

>>1677804
That’s based. It’s like, why are you only allowed to be rich as fuck if you’re some executive? Why can’t you be a rich as fuck farmer?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Jul 2021 04:56:23 No.1677813 Report

Quoted By: >>1678124

>>1677811
Hell, why can’t you be a rich as fuck retard? That would be hilarious.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Jul 2021 10:08:24 No.1677925 Report

Quoted By: >>1678032

>>1674031
>>1674175
>>1674176
>>1677158
Yes, who wouldn't want to live in a drug, crime, and homelessness infested urban hell hole? Nothing quite like waking up in the morning and watching the local diversity shit in the street.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Jul 2021 16:40:53 No.1678032 Report

Quoted By:

>>1677925
Funny how they still want to kill themselves less than people living in rural areas.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO basedretards.jpg, 252KiB, 1419x1149

Anonymous Sat 03 Jul 2021 20:44:46 No.1678124 Report

Quoted By:

>>1677813
>Hell, why can’t you be a rich as fuck retard?
There was a show about this.
There is still reality TV about this.
It's a thing.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

New Infrastructure Bill