If Mitt Romney then Conservatism Dies & Obama Wins

[Dave]

In NYC, more things were done with private money than someone raised in today's government-centric ethos might expect: most of the subway system, most of the water system, most of the electric system, all the major museums (Metropolitan, Natural History, etc.), all the major concert halls and arts centers (Lincoln Center, Carnegie Hall, etc.), Central Park, the Public Library on 42nd Street, almost all the City's largest buildings, almost all the City's economic infrastructure, etc. Most anything that a tourist would want to see was privately done.

I just love the way that you blithely rewrite history.
The NY Public Library was given because Andrew Carnegie decided to return his fortune from being a captain of industry to the people and required a public government commitment in land and support. He saw the "public" as worthy of having a library and that the "government" had the responsibility to provide it.

This was a vastly different time in hisptry and the only model suitable for today is that of the GILDED AGE of OLIGARCHS and the BARONS of INDUSTRY. The public and government were not 2012 and the history of government and public enterprises in the 20th century changed just as the calendar changed from 1900 to 2000.

Using this model social institutions, public internet (ala library), public housing of the poor (Rather than debtor's prison) and food stamps (Rather than begging on the streets), are all not only conceivable but necessary for society.
This would include public health for all...

You cannot merely WISH a century did not exist because you disagree with it politically.

http://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitst...uence=3#page=9

But the greatest philanthropy and the one that fixed for many years
the pattern of library service and branches in the United States was
that of Andrew Carnegie. Carnegie had decided to promote libraries
as a result of his admiration for Colonel James Anderson, who had
given a library to Allegheny County in 1850, as well as for Enoch Pratt,
who gave not only money for libraries but his own continued interest.21
Carnegie gave approximately 1,900 library buildings to the United
States and Canada alone between 1897 and 1917. These included many
branches. For example, he offered sixty-five branches to New York City
at a cost of $5,200,000, thirty to Philadelphia, three to East Orange,
eight to Pittsburgh, and ten to Cleveland among others.
Even more significant than the gift itself, however, was the stimula-
tion it provided toward public support of libraries due to Carnegie’s
insistence that any community receiving a building must not only fur-
nish a site but must also agree to provide an annual maintenance fund
of at least 10% the amount of the gift.

In the contract signed between the Carnegie Corporation and the
interested municipality, minimum support to be given was indicated.
They also suggested minimum standards. The best library opinion was
garnered in devising these guidelines, and architects vied with each
other in designing suitable library buildings. The result was a regu-
larization or standardization of the pattern of branch and library service
with regard to hours, privileges, etc., which nothing else could have
accomplished. A typical specification may be seen in the following
quotation from a Carnegie contract with the New York Public Li-
brary: 23

It is further agreed that the said several branch libraries which may
be constructed pursuant to the provisions of said act, and each of them,
shall be accessible at all reasonable hours and times, free of expense,
to the persons resorting thereto, subject only to such reasonable control
and regulation as the party of the second part, its successor or succes-
sors, from time to time may exercise and establish for general conven-
ience; provided, further, that the lending, delivery and one or more
reading rooms in each of said library buildings shall be open and ac-
cessible to the public upon every day of the week except Sunday, but
including all legal holidays, from at least nine o’clock A.M, to at least
nine o’clock P.M., under such rules and regulations as the said party
of the second part shall prescribe from time to time, and on Sundays
such parts of any of such libraries may be opened in such manner and
during such hours as may be from time to time agreed upon between
the said Board of Estimate and Apportionment and said The New York
Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.

[A-1]

That's a tactic of the Dominionists. They just LOVE to make up their own versions of American history. You know, like the founding fathers being FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS...

[bobover3]

Thanks for reminding me of some other important private contributions -

"Social institutions" - most charities are private or religious. Private groups created schools, hospitals, low-cost housing (Mitchell-Lama Housing amounts to the government making low-cost housing affordable by taking less from developers), food banks, hostels, and assistance of all kinds for the poor. The Salvation Army was helping people long before government.

"Public internet" - I remember ARPANET, but the internet that we all use was and is a wholly private creation. Libraries offer this service free for the same reasons they offer books free. And libraries are the perennial step-children of politics. Whenever there's a budget crunch, libraries are first to be hit. Private charity often makes up the difference.

"Public housing of the poor" - Debtor's prison? Really? In the US, imprisoning people for debt was outlawed in 1833. Private business figured out that repayment was unlikely if debtors were imprisoned. It's true that large-scale public housing is a government achievement.

"Food stamps rather than begging on the streets" - there are beggars anyway, and there always have been, both before and after food stamps. The number of beggars has waxed and waned for reasons other government handouts. In NYC, public begging reached its peak while David Dinkins was Mayor. Back in those glory days of liberalism, squads of healthy young white men lined the streets around major terminals to beg. Food stamps were certainly available then. The Food Stamp program gives a single person $200 per month in food credit. The planners must not have shopped at my supermarket.

It's undeniable that government adds great and good things to society, and that we'd all be worse off without it. But you overstate its importance, and slight the far greater private role.

[Dave]

Thanks for reminding me of some other important private contributions -

...

There's a reason I don't argue with a person from 100 years in the past -- you're it.

Are the successes of the USA in the 20th century so abhorrent to you that you must dismiss everything that happened?
It's not worth the trip back to 1900 to engage the argument.
Honest, your arguments aren't worth the efforts to rebut anymore.
The arguments existed 100 years ago and Teddy Roosevelt, Taft and others changed the USA to something better than industrial oligarchies and robber barons and the gilded age of the golden calf of money.

[transward]

In NYC, more things were done with private money than someone raised in today's government-centric ethos might expect: most of the subway system, most of the water system, most of the electric system, all the major museums (Metropolitan, Natural History, etc.), all the major concert halls and arts centers (Lincoln Center, Carnegie Hall, etc.), Central Park, the Public Library on 42nd Street, almost all the City's largest buildings, almost all the City's economic infrastructure, etc. Most anything that a tourist would want to see was privately done.

Mr Bobover, you are getting sloppy. You need a fact checker.

Subway System: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...rk_City_Subway

In 1898, New York, Kings and Richmond Counties, and parts of Queens and Westchester Counties and their constituent cities, towns, villages and hamlets were consolidated into the City of Greater New York. During this era the expanded City of New York resolved that it wanted the core of future rapid transit to be underground subways, but realized that no private company was willing to put up the enormous capital required to build beneath the streets.The City decided to issue rapid transit bonds outside of its regular bonded debt limit and build the subways itself, and contracted with the IRT (which by that time ran the elevated lines in Manhattan) to equip and operate the subways, sharing the profits with the City and guaranteeing a fixed five-cent fare.

At this time, the original subway (Contract 1) was built from City Hall to the Bronx, with the first part opening in October 1904; an extension to Atlantic Avenue at the LIRR Flatbush Terminal (now Atlantic Terminal) in Brooklyn was built soon after as Contract 2.

The subway system began during the War of Currents when Thomas Edison and his opponent, Nikola Tesla, struggled over acceptance of direct current or alternating current as the standard way to deliver electricity. Alternating current became the standard for non railroad purposes, but New York City Subway adopted direct current as more suitable for urban railroad purposes. To this day, the New York City Transit Authority converts alternating current to 600 volts direct current to power the trains, as do most earlier and later local transit railways around the world.In Brooklyn, the various elevated railroads and many of the surface steam railroads, as well as most of the trolley lines, were consolidated under the BRT. Some improvements were made to these lines at company expense during this era.

Central Park: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park

New York City's need for a great public park was voiced by the poet and editor of the Evening Post (now the New York Post), William Cullen Bryant, and by the first American landscape architect, Andrew Jackson Downing, who began to publicize the city's need for a public park in 1844. A stylish place for open-air driving, similar to the Bois de Boulogne in Paris or London's Hyde Park, was felt to be needed by many influential New Yorkers, and, after an abortive attempt in 1850-51 to designate Jones's Wood, in 1853 the New York legislature settled upon a 700-acre (280 ha) area from 59th to 106th Streets for the creation of the park, at a cost of more than US$5 million for the land alone.[citation needed]

The state appointed a Central Park Commission to oversee the development of the park, and in 1857 the commission held a landscape design contest. Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux developed what came to be known as the Greensward Plan, which was selected as the winning design.

New York Water System: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/dri.../history.shtml

In 1830 a tank for fire protection was constructed by the City at 13th Street and Broadway as was filled from a well. The water was distributed through 12-inch cast iron pipes. As the population of the City increased, the well water became polluted and supply was insufficient. The supply was supplemented by cisterns and water drawn from a few springs in upper Manhattan.

After exploring alternatives for increasing supply, the City decided to impound water from the Croton River, in what is now Westchester County, and to build an aqueduct to carry water from the Old Croton Reservoir to the City. This aqueduct, known today as the Old Croton Aqueduct, had a capacity of about 90 million gallons per day (mgd) and was placed in service in 1842. The distribution reservoirs were located in Manhattan at 42nd Street (discontinued in 1890) and in Central Park south of 86th Street (discontinued in 1925). New reservoirs were constructed to increase supply: Boyds Corner in 1873 and Middle Branch in 1878. In 1883 a commission was formed to build a second aqueduct from the Croton watershed as well as additional storage reservoirs. This aqueduct, known as the New Croton Aqueduct, was under construction from 1885 to 1893 and was placed in service in 1890, while still under construction. The present Water System was consolidated from the various water systems in communities now consisting of the Boroughs of Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island.

Lincoln Center: Although the center was funded largely by private donations, (like most cultural institutions in the US) Its construction was by a private - government cooperation, with land acquired through government's power of eminent domain.

A consortium of civic leaders and others led by, and under the initiative of John D. Rockefeller III, built Lincoln Center as part of the "Lincoln Square Renewal Project" during Robert Moses's program of urban renewal in the 1950s and 1960s.[1] Seventeen blocks of ethnic tenement neighborhoods were demolished through eminent domain, forcing out 7,000 families.[2] Respected architects were contacted to design the major buildings on the site, and over the next thirty years the previously blighted area around Lincoln Center became a new cultural hub.[2] Rockefeller was Lincoln Center's inaugural president from 1956 and became its chairman in 1961. He is credited with raising more than half of the $184.5 million in private funds needed to build the complex,

Lincoln Center and several others you mention were built through New York state public-benefit corporations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yor...t_corporations

New York state public benefit corporations and authorities operate like quasi-private corporations, with boards of directors appointed by elected officials. Public authorities share characteristics with government agencies, but they are exempt from many state and local regulations. Of particular importance, they can issue their own debt, allowing them to bypass limits on state debt contained in the New York State Constitution. This allows public authorities to make potentially risky capital and infrastructure investments without directly putting the credit of New York State or its municipalities on the line. As a result, public authorities have become widely used for financing public works, and they are now responsible for more than 90% of the state's debt. The growing influence of public authorities over state and local financing, coupled with their ability to avoid regulations applicable to government agencies, has led to calls for reform.

I find your post, at best deceptive, or more likely just incorrect.


Transward

[bobover3]

Dave, you apparently believe that "the successes of the USA in the 20th century" are the successes of the government. Nothing more needs to be said.

[A-1]

That's Funny, Dave. I 'find' ALL of Bob/3's posts 2 B PROPAGANDA... er... make that 2 D- Propaganda.

[Mac]

Dave, you apparently believe that "the successes of the USA in the 20th century" are the successes of the government. Nothing more needs to be said.

Yes, private industry and individual initiative are what made this country great. Government limiting the rewards for success only stifles initiative and creativity.

[A-1]

Dave, you apparently believe that "the successes of the USA in the 20th century" are the successes of the government. Nothing more needs to be said.

...nothing more needs to be said ...YOU WISH!!!

Yes, private industry and individual initiative are what made this country great. Government limiting the rewards for success only stifles initiative and creativity.

Yes, and NONE of it could exist WITHOUT the government that we have. Just try to run a business in another country like you can run one in America, screwing people. You may get by SCREWING the public for a while, but YOU HAVE NO Constitutional protections and your days are numbered until your head finally rolls...

[Riverwind]

mac, a question for you, would you say that the 50's and 60's were a good time for business in this country with loads of new initiative new discovery's?

If so or not, do you think that we have that same kind of buying power and initiative way today?

If so or not, look at the tax rate then and now.

Could the average person buy a house then? NOW?

Were corporations people, were they ever? should they be?

These are the questions you should be asking, you might find your answers then.


River

[bobover3]

That's an interesting an important question you ask about the price of housing. I did some research -

In 1960, the median value of a US house was $58,600 (in constant 2000 dollars). In 2000, the median value of a US house was $119,600. So the cost of a house doubled in that time. (See http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housi...ic/values.html)

But there's also the question of what people are getting for their money. In 1960, the average US house was 1,200 square feet. In 2000, the average US house was 2,265 square feet. (See http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=110928)

So the cost of the average house rose from $48.83 per square foot in 1960 to $52.80 per square foot in 2000. An increase of 8% in 40 years is not bad.

What's happened is that Americans' expectations have gone up. They want, and feel they need, much bigger houses than they used.

[A-1]

That's an interesting an important question you ask about the price of housing. I did some research -

In 1960, the median value of a US house was $58,600 (in constant 2000 dollars). In 2000, the median value of a US house was $119,600. So the cost of a house doubled in that time. (See http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housi...ic/values.html)

But there's also the question of what people are getting for their money. In 1960, the average US house was 1,200 square feet. In 2000, the average US house was 2,265 square feet. (See http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=110928)

So the cost of the average house rose from $48.83 per square foot in 1960 to $52.80 per square foot in 2000. An increase of 8% in 40 years is not bad.

What's happened is that Americans' expectations have gone up. They want, and feel they need, much bigger houses than they used.

FROM the statistical costs that YOU provided it appears like the value of a house has risen SIGNIFICANTLY but the cost of building houses has not.

This means one thing. Consumers are bring RIPPED OFF by businesses that build houses.

[moi621]

That's an interesting an important question you ask about the price of housing. I did some research -

In 1960, the median value of a US house was $58,600 (in constant 2000 dollars). In 2000, the median value of a US house was $119,600. So the cost of a house doubled in that time. (See http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housi...ic/values.html)

But there's also the question of what people are getting for their money. In 1960, the average US house was 1,200 square feet. In 2000, the average US house was 2,265 square feet. (See http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=110928)

So the cost of the average house rose from $48.83 per square foot in 1960 to $52.80 per square foot in 2000. An increase of 8% in 40 years is not bad.

What's happened is that Americans' expectations have gone up. They want, and feel they need, much bigger houses than they used.

Now compare the price of the land.
It's the land, Bob3 Ex-BFF, it's the land. (Think GWTW.)

Moi
An American Home Owner.
GOD Bless Prop.13 or I would be taxed out of my Home Sweet Home.

[A-1]

Now compare the price of the land.
It's the land, Bob3 Ex-BFF, it's the land. (Think GWTW.)

Moi
An American Home Owner.
GOD Bless Prop.13 or I would be taxed out of my Home Sweet Home.

moi


.....
..........
.....


Now that YOUR lights are flickering on...
DO YOU UNDERSTAND REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS YET?

[moi621]

moi


.....
..........
.....


Now that YOUR lights are flickering on...
DO YOU UNDERSTAND REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS YET?

Reply appropriately placed here
http://www.eunuch.org/forums/showthr...085#post207085