Trans-Texas Corridor Part of Larger Plan

[TheNiche]

What's with the whole "jobs driving" deal? We have a service economy, and there is nothing wrong with that. Britain does too, and so do most developed nations. It's nothing to be ashamed of. The reason Americans panic about outsourcing is the result of liberal ballyhooing, an attempt by a very small minority of indignant workers to hold the entire American people hostage. If they have their way, we'd all be paying a dollar for a roll of toilet paper just so some podunk town in Ohio can employ a couple hundred workers making toilet paper. We as a people shouldn't look backward and protect the past, but rather look forward and prepare to lead the future generation. Communications, biotechnology, robotics, global finance, there are plenty of strengths we can exploit.

Couldn't have said it better, myself! I don't think that this is even a liberal vs. conservative thing though, as much as it is a populist/union thing. It is just this segment of the population that has a kneejerk negative reaction to anything that changes, whether for better or for worse. Most don't even know how to distinguish the two for lack of understanding about economics.

[desirous]

Couldn't have said it better, myself! I don't think that this is even a liberal vs. conservative thing though, as much as it is a populist/union thing. It is just this segment of the population that has a kneejerk negative reaction to anything that changes, whether for better or for worse. Most don't even know how to distinguish the two for lack of understanding about economics.

Precisely. I used the term "liberal" just because more liberals than conservatives tend to be populist. Populist policies do not work. A market economy is inherently unequal, by virtue of placing greater value on people that think faster, work harder, and aim higher, yet it has allowed us to advance to a level where even the poor today enjoy some of the best living conditions in the world. Uneducated people face difficulties not because of NAFTA or China, but because 21st century civilization, and the development thereof, has limited use for unskilled labor. We will soon have the technology to obviate a majority of retail cashiers, for example.

America became the world's strongest nation by being the leader in developing human civilization. We flew the first airplane; we invented nuclear power; we landed men on the moon; we built the Internet. Our task is to prove our worth by staying ahead of the competition. Our strength lies in what is yet to be discovered, not in tariffs, or protectionism, or "currency revaluations."

[urban909]

America became the world's strongest nation by being the leader in developing human civilization. We flew the first airplane; we invented nuclear power; we landed men on the moon; we built the Internet.

the chinese empires, indian, egyptian, greek, roman, and muslim nations, etc. were just as influencial in their own sense, and look where that lead them. we are able to be the dominant "empire" today because of these previous civilizations who contribitued much more than just what was mentioned. i don't beleive we have been a "leader" as so much as the others; we have just been dominant in technologies in the last 50-60 years or so. its not about what "territory" we have in the traditional sense, but what technological advantages we have.

and yes, the lowest income people in the US are far better off than the rest of the world. however, in the last 35 years the 12 percent of the wealthiest of the wealthiest have grown in assests, or in numbers (slightly) while the middle class has been almost intereliy disolved and the poorer income population has grown. it will soon come to a point of huge social conflict and hopefully social change. americans tend to be more independent in the their thinking than other "western societies" i.e. europe. this has lead us, as a nation, to feel must direct the world into some sort of doctrinal understanding that others must follow. for example, if one was to see some wealthy person from the U.A.E sitting on a yaught, drinking champagne and going through the "motions of westernism", would they be considered western by our standards? absolutely not seeing its a parochial socitey.

and sorry for getting OFF topic again. unless i didnt see if someone started a thread somewhere else...

[TheNiche]

in the last 35 years the 12 percent of the wealthiest of the wealthiest have grown in assests, or in numbers (slightly) while the middle class has been almost intereliy disolved and the poorer income population has grown.

In real terms, the poorest segment of the population have remained about as poor as they had been historically. You are correct that the wealthiest have been becoming wealthier, but that in and of itself is a good thing. The middle class as a percentage of U.S. households has declined, but only because more of them are now in the upper class; this is also good. I've cited the Harvard study that confirmed these trends in another post on HAIF in the past, but I can't remember where it is.

it will soon come to a point of huge social conflict and hopefully social change.

Let us hope not.

Insofar as the standard of living is at least not declining among all classes, that there is a gap between the rich and poor is not all that bad of a thing. The poor are above the level of subsistence, and where they fall behind, there are social services in place to ensure a guaranteed subsistence. It may not be a pleasant life, but if a pleasant life were guaranteed by the government for all, I can guarantee you that many of the most productive workers in our society would drop out of the labor force. I would...at least until the government decided that that wasn't in the peoples' interests, and either forced me to work, executed me, or at best, exiled me to a foreign country. That seems to be the pattern in nations that have succumbed to socialist/communist revolution.

Frankly, I think that if that happened, the NRA, GOA, and other similar organizations (formal & informal) would kick some ass...never mind break-away elements of the military. You want to be out of Iraq? What you're hoping for turns us into a domestic Iraq. Americans are probably more resourceful and have better marksmanship than many Iraqis, so it might even be worse. In fact, I'd bet on it.

[urban909]

but if a pleasant life were guaranteed by the government for all, I can guarantee you that many of the most productive workers in our society would drop out of the labor force. I would...at least until the government decided that that wasn't in the peoples' interests, and either forced me to work, executed me, or at best, exiled me to a foreign country. That seems to be the pattern in nations that have succumbed to socialist/communist revolution

You want to be out of Iraq? What you're hoping for turns us into a domestic Iraq. Americans are probably more resourceful and have better marksmanship than many Iraqis, so it might even be worse. In fact, I'd bet on it.

When I mean social change, I mean societal change, not a social/communist revolution. The thing about communism is 1) there never was or is a country that is communist. 2) Communism doesn't work, seeing that there is one common thread: human tendencies. Look at what happened to Russia. Yes there was an uprising, several times in fact, but that was because different reasons that lead to a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Huh? I never said anything about Iraq. The situation that is currently happening in Iraq is absolutely inconsequential to what i am talking about. Completely different, but goes back to my original point of expecting other societal structures to adhere through some social-conflict approach.

So what are your theories on the N.A.U? I don

[TheNiche]

When I mean social change, I mean societal change, not a social/communist revolution. The thing about communism is 1) there never was or is a country that is communist. 2) Communism doesn't work, seeing that there is one common thread: human tendencies. Look at what happened to Russia. Yes there was an uprising, several times in fact, but that was because different reasons that lead to a dictatorship of the proletariat.

So what are your theories on the N.A.U? I don

[urban909]

I hope that that answered your question, but I'm not sure what N.A.U. is.

it what this thread is mostly about; the TTC being part of a larger movement for lack of a better word. the N.A.U is the North American Union, which Canada, US and Mexico are ultimately trying to succeed in doing. which went to my original thoughts on why such a union would be created in the first place and ultimately led to off topic conversation. but if you want, discussion of internal/external policies, politics, and all that good stuff, it should be moved to a seperate category. just trying to get the back to the original topic.

[TheNiche]

it what this thread is mostly about; the TTC being part of a larger movement for lack of a better word. the N.A.U is the North American Union, which Canada, US and Mexico are ultimately trying to succeed in doing. which went to my original thoughts on why such a union would be created in the first place and ultimately led to off topic conversation. but if you want, discussion of internal/external policies, politics, and all that good stuff, it should be moved to a seperate category. just trying to get the back to the original topic.

Ah, I see. Excuse me.

I'm all for anything that promotes inexpensive trade across all geographic areas, insofar as the cost of the infrastructure is at least in-line with the benefits.

[desirous]

the chinese empires, indian, egyptian, greek, roman, and muslim nations, etc. were just as influencial in their own sense, and look where that lead them. we are able to be the dominant "empire" today because of these previous civilizations who contribitued much more than just what was mentioned. i don't beleive we have been a "leader" as so much as the others; we have just been dominant in technologies in the last 50-60 years or so. its not about what "territory" we have in the traditional sense, but what technological advantages we have.

The ancient empires failed because they failed to embrace change. Some empires, such as Egypt and Rome, never concentrated on technological development. Others, such as China, developed somewhat; however, they backtracked and failed in the end, mainly due to traditionalist, isolationist, backwards-looking people like we see in America today. Read up on ancient history; it will simply bolster my case. Western civilization today is the first time in history where a liberal, progressive, scientifically-oriented social system has prevailed over ignorant, traditional world-views. This advantage is fragile, however. Look at the millions of Americans that would rather quash scientific research and cultural development in favour of a 2,000-year-old religious text. Don't take modern civilization for granted; every one of us, as good citizens, have the obligation to ensure its survival.

and yes, the lowest income people in the US are far better off than the rest of the world. however, in the last 35 years the 12 percent of the wealthiest of the wealthiest have grown in assests, or in numbers (slightly)

The poor are poor. Is that supposed to be news? Offer technical training programs and job seeking assistance to the poor that have aspirations. The ones that don't have aspirations deserve to be as poor as they are. Mankind functions best as a meritocracy; unconditional assistance should only be offered to the disabled. What if someone's lazy and hate learning, but not retarded? Too bad, so sad. Keep watching daytime soaps and chugging beers, I couldn't care less if he can't afford electricity. Government needs to step in and help the disabled and those that want to be uplifted, and forget those that just want freebies.

while the middle class has been almost intereliy disolved and the poorer income population has grown.

The middle class has never done this well! That the middle class has been dissolved is a complete fabrication, one of the most ridiculous falsehoods in existence today. What's making life hard for middle class individuals is their persistent materialism. Of course you'll struggle financially if you buy a 5,000 square foot mansion, a 7-series BMW, three plasma televisions, and a timeshare in Maui, all on variable interest loans! Every middle class man/woman/family I know that overcame the materialist instinct is (barring disaster, i.e. a Katrina victim family) quite comfortable with their finances. Quit keeping up with the Joneses; there is nothing wrong with owning less. It's almost pathological how so many fellow Americans think a family of four needs five bedrooms and five cars. Healthcare and education are becoming unbearably expensive, but that's a problem with healthcare and education, not with the middle class somehow sinking into a hole. I, for one, don't mind paying additional taxes (as an above-average income earner) to fund equitable education programs.

it will soon come to a point of huge social conflict and hopefully social change.

That makes you sound like a Marxist peasant. Huge social conflict? "Hopefully" social change? What kind of change? Do you really think that? You say that socialism failed, but you talk like a 1920's Bolshevik. Hypocrite.

americans tend to be more independent in the their thinking than other "western societies" i.e. europe. this has lead us, as a nation, to feel must direct the world into some sort of doctrinal understanding that others must follow.

Nobody is obligated to direct anybody else into doctrinal understanding. Maybe President Bush tried (and failed) to do that, but most Americans simply go on their merry business day after day.

for example, if one was to see some wealthy person from the U.A.E sitting on a yaught, drinking champagne and going through the "motions of westernism", would they be considered western by our standards? absolutely not seeing its a parochial socitey.

The "wealthy person from the UAE sitting on a yacht" would, statistically, be a white, European male. Is that the intended target of your condescension? Also, do not forget that Dubai is a vibrant international finance centre, home to hundreds of international corporations, the same companies whose existence allow our blessed and comfortable modern existence. People in Dubai work hard for what they have, just as in New York or London or Tokyo. For some reason, people find it convenient to think everyone in Dubai is an oil sheik - and speaking of oil sheiks, some of them are far more enlightened and progressive than most cynical Americans ever will be.

This isn't really off-topic - it's partially spun off from a debate on the North American Union. The NAU itself might be a bad idea, but the rationale behind some people's reasoning is what touched off my posts. Reject the union on sound economic and political grounds, not on some socially backwards scaremongering.

[nmainguy]

The "wealthy person from the UAE sitting on a yacht" would, statistically, be a white, European male.

Actually that person would more than likely be a Caucasion individual of Arabic decent.

BTW, there is no such thing as a "white" person. I'll excuse your ignorance regarding race. It's a common mistake made by common most people.

This isn't really off-topic -

Actually it's completely off topic but I'll just sit back while you and The Pedant hijack the topic.

BTW, nothing says alleged child trafficing like the "progressive" (your word) Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum! What a guy!

[desirous]

Actually that person would more than likely be a Caucasion individual of Arabic decent.

BTW, there is no such thing as a "white" person. I'll excuse your ignorance regarding race. It's a common mistake made by common most people.

I wasn't aware that Europeans are of Arabic descent. Perhaps you're the pedant and I just didn't know it. Dubai is a majority of native folk and South Asians servicing a minority of foreigners, of foreign descent, as well as local executives.

I can use "white" just as I use "black" or "Asian." Technically, we're all from Africa, so don't get technical on me.

[urban909]

The ancient empires failed because they failed to embrace change. Some empires, such as Egypt and Rome, never concentrated on technological development. Others, such as China, developed somewhat; however, they backtracked and failed in the end, mainly due to traditionalist, isolationist, backwards-looking people like we see in America today

What I meant was, as someone "pointed out" earlier, was that America was/is the greatest contribution to mankind or something like that. Well, at the time of these empires, before their fall, they were/was the greatest contribution to mankind. And to say Rome or egypt never focused on technological development...wow. now, china was, whilst exploring, found the rest of the world as below them for lack of better wording. then that is true in your statement.

The poor are poor. Is that supposed to be news? Offer technical training programs and job seeking assistance to the poor that have aspirations. The ones that don't have aspirations deserve to be as poor as they are

"Oh its their fault their poor. They should just get out and find a job." pssh. Its a common problem, that we tend to think so egocentrically that it overshadows the responsibilities of a government to provide the means to get out of such situations. not through training program. Offer free education at state universities and free medical care and that solves some of this dilemma. people complain about taxes, but then in turn complain about those "lazy" poor people that just won't go find a job because it raises taxes for a solution. now if you are referring to some that abuse the welfare program, that truly are capable of finding a job, I am totally in favor of a cutoff after a certain amount of time.

"The middle class has never done this well! That the middle class has been dissolved is a complete fabrication, one of the most ridiculous falsehoods in existence today. What's making life hard for middle class individuals is their persistent materialism."

Materialism isn't just a middle class problem. i am a capitalist, in a sense, but with proper social (not socialist) systems in place. (i.e. England) And I don't go out buying things that I cannot afford. And yes there is a dissolving middle-class

That makes you sound like a Marxist peasant. Huge social conflict? "Hopefully" social change? What kind of change? Do you really think that? You say that socialism failed, but you talk like a 1920's Bolshevik.

The Bolsheviks were a break away faction of the second party congress at the turn of the century in Russia. They, as I stated before, were anything but communist. Lenin twisted the early writings of Marx into a doctrine that lead to a dictatorship. And as I stated in a previous post, social change means to me societal change. As you stated, better education and medical care; social systems in place not some communist uprising. and i dislike those that say "we need some kind of communistishlike society". wrong, just a bunch of neo-hippies. And I said communism failed, not socialism. if you care to look, there is a difference. but it also depends on where you look. Hegel? Leon Trotsky? Early marx? (Economic and Philosphic Manuscripts of 1844) Later marx? (Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy)

Nobody is obligated to direct anybody else into doctrinal understanding. Maybe President Bush tried (and failed) to do that, but most Americans simply go on their merry business day after day.

i didn't say obligated, i mean't felt nessecary. they reason iraq has failed would take several books, so that won't be touched upon.

The "wealthy person from the UAE sitting on a yacht" would, statistically, be a white, European male.

Umm, where/why would you say such a thing? facts? proof? No, as I said, the leaders of such countries doing "western" things usually evoke the reaction that their western. That is a complete falsification.

This isn't really off-topic - it's partially spun off from a debate on the North American Union. The NAU itself might be a bad idea, but the rationale behind some people's reasoning is what touched off my posts. Reject the union on sound economic and political grounds, not on some socially backwards scaremongering.

I am not "scaremongering", I am just stating my own theories on American life, politics, etc. oh and yes, off topic. as i stated earlier, lets move it to a new section!!!

cheers

[pineda]

State Senator (and former TxDOT Transportation Commissioner) Robert Nichols files bill to stop Comprehensive Development Agreements like the TTC project for two years

[TheNiche]

"Oh its their fault their poor."

In many cases, yes it is. Take RedScare, for instance. He is by no means a poor man, but within the context of middle-aged male lawyers, he could do better. He knows it, but prefers a more minimalist lifestyle with fewer working hours and more leisure time. It isn't a bad thing, either, and I actually commend him on being able to discern and follow through on what really makes him happy...some people will never be so content.

I've met people at University of Houston that are basically professional students. Interesting people. One of them was a cofounder of Sun Microsystems, but is now just a middle-aged student of history, religion, and language. He lives, basically, in poverty, but is by no means a poor man.

I went to high school in McAllen with a couple fairly bright guys that developed a good understanding of computer science and could probably get jobs as technicians or very easily educate themselves and do much better. ...yet they stay at home with mom (the provider), even into their mid-twenties, and play video online games. They are not in the labor force. Does a lack of income on their part and a lower ratio of income to household size mean that either they or their mom are less well off? Or are they happier as things are? But if mom quit paying the bills, do you think that these guys would still sit around on their asses playing Everquest and World of Warcraft? In this example, mommy gets some benefit from paying for the boys to stay at home, but society is worse off because they have skills that aren't being put to use. The government is the people, not mommy. Therefore, the government should not be supportive of this lifestyle. Nor should it discourage it, though, IMO, because then the government would then have to assume that it knows more about what makes people happy than the people do. The government should be neutral, allowing all people to choose their fate.

Its a common problem, that we tend to think so egocentrically that it overshadows the responsibilities of a government to provide the means to get out of such situations. not through training program. Offer free education at state universities and free medical care and that solves some of this dilemma.

Free education at the primary and secondary levels is desirable because it frees up parents to be workers and keeps kids in a controlled setting and under surveillance. More or less, it is a day care center with the secondary benefit to society being the opportunity to educate. At the higher level, though, individuals must be allowed to choose for themselves whether an education (basically, an investment in oneself) is worth pursuing. Some people aren't worthy of an education, and if the cost is internalized, they know enough to avoid wasting their time and society's resources. If education is free, then 1) it dilutes the value of education as a way to screen people as qualified or unqualified for jobs, 2) it diverts an excessive amount of social resources into pursuits that don't always pay off, and 3) it removes a whole lot of people from the labor force. The problem is compounded because not only are there more college students, but many students are likely to continue their education to a level beyond that at which it makes sense. For instance, I am not in the Ph.D. economics program right now because the present value of the benefits were insufficient to outweigh the cost. Westerners seem to be pretty good at arriving at those conclusions, whereas if you look at the roster of economics grad students, Easterners seem to place an irrational value on higher education, even in fields where they would be expected to know better. Ironically, the professor that was pushing me toward the Ph.D. program acknowledged that I was correct in my assessment, btw.

Medical care is subject to similar constraints, but is a fustercluck of existing public regulation and private ethics. If it is free for all people, the quantity demanded increases, siphoning away society's resources from projects that would've created further economic growth. On top of that, the extra care that is provided causes people to live longer, which has adverse ramifications on society as a result of social welfare programs for the elderly that kick in in the long term. Volumes can (and have been) written on the subject.

But basically, the problem is that there are limited resources in society with which to undertake an unlimited set of demands. The resources need to be rationed, and in most cases, a market-based approach is the most effective (and arguably moral) approach.

And yes there is a dissolving middle-class

Can you explain what you mean by "dissolving"? Perhaps a better definition will allow me to assess the merit and implications of your statement.

[Pumapayam]

Suprised I haven't seen much if any talk on this subject. What is everyones view?

Uh. . . try here?

Under the same heading Traffic and Transportation-->"Trans-Texas Corridor Part of Larger Plan, Bush Administration Going Stealth on Huge Superhighway Plans".

Amazing what can be accomplished if you use the SEARCH function.

I went ahead as asked for this to be merged.

[nmainguy]

I wasn't aware that Europeans are of Arabic descent. Perhaps you're the pedant and I just didn't know it. Dubai is a majority of native folk and South Asians servicing a minority of foreigners, of foreign descent, as well as local executives.

I can use "white" just as I use "black" or "Asian." Technically, we're all from Africa, so don't get technical on me.

More and more Europeans are now of Arabic decent...but I was speaking to your guy on the yacht. He is most likely a caucasian of Arabic decent. Not "white" or "black" or purple. If you choose to confuse ethnicity with race-go for it.

[urban909]

Can you explain what you mean by "dissolving"? Perhaps a better definition will allow me to assess the merit and implications of your statement.

dissolving or rather a larger gap has grown between the wealthy and the middle class, resulting in an increase of those barely or below the average mean income in the US. the richest 20 percent or so own around 84 percent of the countries wealth. the wealthiest 5 percent own 60 percent of private property (i am not going or against owning of private property) the 1 percent posses about 40 percent of the nations privately held resources (again not against private holdings, just stating facts). if you take financial assest that are balanced against debts, the lowest 40 percent have virtually no wealth at all. now, this is pretty rough i believe, i am trying to remember off the top of my head from a class awhile back so excuse me if i am wrong

More and more Europeans are now of Arabic decent...but I was speaking to your guy on the yacht. He is most likely a caucasian of Arabic decent. Not "white" or "black" or purple. If you choose to confuse ethnicity with race-go for it.

ha! nice..."stereotype= an exaggerated description applied to every person in some category". sociology 101

[pineda]

updated map of TTC/I-69

[desirous]

I think we've all said all there is to say for now. Any more, and it'll just be argument. urban909, it's been good discussing with you. nmainguy, next time I'm in Europe, I'll look into the Arabic descent thing. It's curious, since I've always thought most white people don't have "Arabic descent" in them.

[TheNiche]

dissolving or rather a larger gap has grown between the wealthy and the middle class, resulting in an increase of those barely or below the average mean income in the US. the richest 20 percent or so own around 84 percent of the countries wealth. the wealthiest 5 percent own 60 percent of private property (i am not going or against owning of private property) the 1 percent posses about 40 percent of the nations privately held resources (again not against private holdings, just stating facts). if you take financial assest that are balanced against debts, the lowest 40 percent have virtually no wealth at all. now, this is pretty rough i believe, i am trying to remember off the top of my head from a class awhile back so excuse me if i am wrong

This gap between assets owned by the richest and poorest (not a dissolution of the middle class, per se) is bad why? For that matter, how is it necessarily bad that people leverage their assets? I know this sounds flippant, but it is a serious question.

Demographic trends bias these statistics because wealth as measured by net assets tends to be disproportionately concentrated in households with older householders that are still in the labor force (and older people, generally), and that these trends look particularly bad right now because boomers are nearly at their lifetime peak of savings, which occurs just prior to retirement. If the measure of interest were personal income and outlays, the statistics would likely tell a much more moderate story.

Debt is not inherently evil. It is not only taken out in order to fund consumption, but also investment (and expenditures that fall in between). For instance, someone that buys their first home or that starts a business is going to start out with a very high level of debt relative to assets, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're in a financially-precarious position. Without considering their income alongside what is on their personal balance sheet, such ratios are basically meaningless. In fact, the argument could be made that people wouldn't be taking out so much debt unless they were enormously confident in the economy and in their own ability to manage it. Finance 101.

[pineda]

good report on the protest against the Trans-Texas Corridor

[musicman]

Trans-Texas Corridor is dead, TxDOT chief says

In response to public outcry, the ambitious proposal to create the Trans-Texas Corridor network has been dropped and will be replaced with a plan to carry out road projects at an incremental, modest pace, a state transportation official announced today.

"The Trans-Texas Corridor, as it is known, no longer exists," said Amadeo Saenz, Jr., executive director of the Texas Department of Transportation a forum in Austin.

The state, he said, will carry forward with modifications to proposed projects and will rely heavily upon input from Texans through more town hall meetings and an updated Web site.

He also made clear that, should toll lanes be added to various roads, tolls will be assessed only on those, and not existing lanes.

The renewed effort now will operate under the name "Innovative Connectivity Plan."

full article

[Subdude]

Trans-Texas Corridor is dead, TxDOT chief says

In response to public outcry, the ambitious proposal to create the Trans-Texas Corridor network has been dropped and will be replaced with a plan to carry out road projects at an incremental, modest pace, a state transportation official announced today.

"The Trans-Texas Corridor, as it is known, no longer exists," said Amadeo Saenz, Jr., executive director of the Texas Department of Transportation a forum in Austin.

The state, he said, will carry forward with modifications to proposed projects and will rely heavily upon input from Texans through more town hall meetings and an updated Web site.

He also made clear that, should toll lanes be added to various roads, tolls will be assessed only on those, and not existing lanes.

The renewed effort now will operate under the name "Innovative Connectivity Plan."

full article

Good news that this boondoggle is dead.

[ENGcons]

Wow this really surprises me. I am curious how the death of the TTC will affect the Grand Parkway, if at all.

[editor]

The renewed effort now will operate under the name "Innovative Connectivity Plan."

Seems appropriate for this era when things are often labeled what they are not, since the new plan is neither innovative, nor connective.

[klein]

I knew the Chinese government was evil, them and their Chery vehicles!

Let's Declare War then.