And what about rent control. People would all flee to the suburbs if the government didnt support city living!

I used to work for a company that ran ticket sales and fundraising for non-profit arts groups.

I once had a chance to raise funds for the SF Opera.

The guy who was doing it was living in an apartment that was about the size of 2 hotel rooms and he was paying almost $1000 a month.

How can the Suburbs be more than that?

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/4/2011 12:11:00 AM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 1/3/2011 10:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by creilmann on 1/3/2011 6:30:00 PM (view original):
It's A Wonderful Life????  Are you f**king kidding me?

Of course Bedford Falls, being a teeming metropolis of hundreds if not thousands, had suburbs.

And even there people wanted to move to the suburbs from the city.

This is almost instictive, like salmons spawning.

People want to own a piece of property.

There was no city, you impossibly brain dead fucktard. Bedford Falls was stereotypical small town USA. People wanted to own their own homes instead of living in Potter's crappy properties -- that's what the conflict between Potter's bank and Bailey's B&L was about, not about "moving to the suburbs".

You clearly understand nothing about anything, if even something as basic and clearly spelled out as the size of Bedford Falls doesn't penetrate that impregnable fortress of incoherence and reality-denial you call a brain.

I mean, Jesus H ******* Christ, Jimmy Stewart spends the entire ******* movie ******** about how boring Bedford Falls is and how he's going to get out and see the world. And yet somehow, you manage to interpret that as him living in a city big enough to have suburbs.

Your brain is ******* defective.

Bailey wanted to leave...everyone else wanted to stay and live in Baileys suburb...not Potterville

You are so twisted by your left wing dogma you cant see what Americans are really like!

What the **** does any of this have to do with "left wing dogma"? You are completely wrong about the content of a movie that a four year old child can understand. Frank Capra would laugh at you and call you a pathetic lunatic for dragging his movie into this masochistic debate of yours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_Falls_(village),_New_York

Seneca Falls is a village in Seneca County, New York, United States. The population was 6,861 at the 2000 census. The village is in the Town of Seneca Falls, east of Geneva, New York. On March 16, 2010, village residents voted to dissolve the village, a move that would take effect at the end of 2011. It will become the largest New York municipality ever to vote for dissolution.

Finger Lakes Regional Airport (0G7) is south of the village.

Seneca Falls is believed by some as the inspiration for the fictional town of "Bedford Falls, N.Y." portrayed in filmmaker Frank Capra's classic 1940s film "It's a Wonderful Life".^[1]

So according to swamp, towns with populations in the low to mid four digits have suburbs.

Still doesn't make it free market.  If the market can provide it then let it.  But in this case, the government has stepped in to help control prices and regulate land use.  Not free market at all.

There isnt a single thing in the entire country that the government does not have its fingers in.

Suburbs were as close to free market as is possible!

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/4/2011 1:50:00 AM (view original):

It isnt a direst documentary. My point was that Americans as a whole want to live in the suburbs in ranch houses. This movie shows a basis for my belief of a cultural trend.

If you would ever ask what I mean by something instead of going off on one of your pre-psychotic rages you might learn something and be a better person for it!

The people of Bedford Falls wanted to own their own homes and not live in Potter's rentals. It had nothing to do with "suburbs" or "ranch houses".

For that matter, the idea that Americans "wanted to live in ranch houses" is also completely ***-backwards. Ranch houses became ubiquitous because they were easy and cheap for developers to build (being only one storey and without a lot of interior elements) while still being able to give them some character via slight variations.

The crowning absurdity of this ridiculous sideline, of course, is that there is a classic Christmas movie that 'shows a basis for your belief of a cultural trend' towards living in the suburbs. You just picked the wrong ******* one, because, as I've said many times before, your brain is defective.

Also: the only thing you have to teach anyone, swamp, is how not to make a compelling argument.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/4/2011 3:28:00 AM (view original):
There isnt a single thing in the entire country that the government does not have its fingers in.

Suburbs were as close to free market as is possible!

Not true.  My arguments aren't based on a technicality.  If you want to make the suburbs as close to free market as possible (which I believe is the stated goal of conservatives), there are a few things that must be done.....

- Minimize the government's role in the mortgage industry.  Stop government insured loans.  Stop allowing mortgage interest deductions and other housing deductions.  Wanna cut down that deficit?  This is an area were we can save about 100 billion a year.  There's la lot of anti-Freddie and Fannie rhetoric today, but few understand the effect that those institutions had on the housing market.  The reason that the government created Freddie and Fannie is because no private investors were willing to create a secondary mortgage market.  The 30 year fixed rate mortgage is a government invention.  How different would the housing market be if a majority of the mortgages were only 5 years?

- Minimize zoning laws.  Like I said before, it shouldn't be illegal to want to open a corner store in a residential area.  If you want to protect the value of your home, rely on the market and purchase home equity insurance.  Wanna keep the local store out of your neighborhood, create a property association.  In a free market economy, it is not up to the state to insure the value of your home.  It shouldn't be up to the state to mandate parking requirements either.  Let the market decided the amount, if any, of parking necessary.

- Change the property tax structure.  The current system used in most cities and counties places heavy emphasis on the structure built on the property.  You're taxes increase depending on the value of this structure.  In a free market economy, it would make more sense to tax the land itself and allow the owner to build on the property tax free.  Owners still pay taxes on the materials, so why double tax on the structure as well?

- Eliminate big box tax incentives.  Does Walmart really need the help of the taxpayer?  Stop subsidizing these massive retailers.  That mall that you love so dear receives tens of millions in subsidies from the taxpayer.  Why, in a free market economy, are we giving away tax breaks, infrastructure and land to large corporations?

- Make suburban tenants pay the true cost of infrastructure.  Make them pay for water, for example, on a per unit basis.  In a lot of cases, suburbanites would pay twice as much for water then their denser urban counterparts.  Doesn't that just makes sense?  If it costs more to supply you with water, shouldn't you pay more for that water?

- If the argument against mass transit is that it doesn't pay for itself and, therefore, is not fair to those who don't use it, then apply that same standard to those who drive since user fees in no way cover the cost of driving.  Want new and wider roads in the 'burbs?  Then be prepared to pay more tolls and hike gas taxes to a level that will cover the cost of those roads.  Then you can justify your argument against mass transit.

Anyone who claims to support capitalism would look at these options and see that they are closer to free market principles then our current structure.  You are only arguing against them because you realize that you are a major benefactor of heavy government subsidies and that exposes you as the hypocrite that you are.  The only option left for you is to deny the facts.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/3/2011 6:19:00 PM (view original):
And where exactly would they have lived?

Suburbs were what people wanted. The movie "Its a wonderful life" is about people wanting to get out of Potters city and into Baileys suburb. This was long before any Federal Support.

Awesome.  

Hey, just wondering though, why did you choose a movie that you'd never seen to use as your example?