• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no echo chambers. Create your FREE Cyburbia ID, and join us today! You can also register through your Reddit, Facebook, Google, Twitter, or Microsoft account.

Are all planners liberals?

BIH80

Member
Messages
64
Points
4
I'm moderate, w/ left leaning. I care about both the environment and the global economy. I do think we can find sustainability, all is not lost. I entered college in '98 as an economics/business major but I realized how greedy and irresponsible the business world can be. It wasn't for me. Then, Enron happened. I ended minoring up in business and majoring in geography as pre-law study. ;)
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,464
Points
29
BikePlanIt said:
I'd bet a lot of people would say that's a liberal take, but I think it's the most conservative; fiscally and environmentally. I like the idea of ethanol, produced sustainably from native corn crops here in America. What could be more conservative than retention of valuable resources, producing local jobs on our own soil?
Except, and the Iowans on the Board can provide more illumination on this matter (which is under some dispute, I understand), a country with declining energy resources and a population booming towards 350 million (with uncontrolled immigration and natural increase) needs all the corn it can get. Growing corn-especially the way we do it with huge tractors, draining aquifers, and lots of petrochemicals, requires a ton of energy. Isn't the net energy neutral at best-or even a loss?
 

teshadoh

Suspended Bad Email Address
Messages
437
Points
13
I'm sorry if this point has been made before - but I do see more planners from earlier generations (especially boomers) to be conservative.

Of course - this may be a really dumb point, so don't be surprised if I'm not enthusiastic about what I said...
 

greginboise

Cyburbian
Messages
97
Points
4
teshadoh said:
I'm sorry if this point has been made before - but I do see more planners from earlier generations (especially boomers) to be conservative.

Of course - this may be a really dumb point, so don't be surprised if I'm not enthusiastic about what I said...
That's because as you get older, you usually get smarter.

There are some notable exceptions, of course, such as Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, and Nacy Pelosi, to name a few.
 

eightiesfan

Cyburbian
Messages
112
Points
6
BKM said:
Except, and the Iowans on the Board can provide more illumination on this matter (which is under some dispute, I understand), a country with declining energy resources and a population booming towards 350 million (with uncontrolled immigration and natural increase) needs all the corn it can get. Growing corn-especially the way we do it with huge tractors, draining aquifers, and lots of petrochemicals, requires a ton of energy. Isn't the net energy neutral at best-or even a loss?
I think you are correct, ethanol requires more energy to be produced than it saves and is only around as a government subsidary plan for corn farmers.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,464
Points
29
greginboise said:
That's because as you get older, you usually get smarter.

There are some notable exceptions, of course, such as Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, and Nacy Pelosi, to name a few.
You've gotta be kidding me. :-@

Well, as a Godless Liberal who has no children, I can only respond that I am glad I have no children to leave to a world bankrupted and made more violent by the "smart" conservative nutcases currently in power. Boy, the intellectual firepower in the current neocon movement just amazes me.
 

giff57

Corn Burning Fool
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
5,416
Points
32
BKM said:
Growing corn-especially the way we do it with huge tractors, draining aquifers, and lots of petrochemicals, requires a ton of energy. Isn't the net energy neutral at best-or even a loss?

Huge tractors use more fuel but take less trips across the field so the result is less energy inputs.

Only corn under irrigation would do anything with the aquifers, I did a quick look for a percentage of irrigated vs non-irrigated but didn't find anything. My feeling is that most is not irrigated. It is true as the demand for corn increases that this woulld perhaps be more of a problem as more marginal land is farmed.

Technology is reducing the amounts of fertilizers needed to sustain good yields.




eightiesfan said:
I think you are correct, ethanol requires more energy to be produced than it saves and is only around as a government subsidary plan for corn farmers.
Read this paper then get back to me with your sources.

Most of the research cited that supports your claim comes from the 80's. Production technologies have come a long way since then. Many of these studies also do not count the by products of ethanol production in the calculations.
 

Wulf9

Member
Messages
923
Points
22
greginboise said:
That's because as you get older, you usually get smarter.

There are some notable exceptions, of course, such as Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, and Nacy Pelosi, to name a few.

That's a pretty wierd conclusion. The folks who put together an 8 year string of excellent economy, budget surpluses, peace, and respect from the rest of the world are the "dumb" ones.

The "smart" ones are the current government that has tanked the economy, run up a huge deficit, started a needless war that they don't know how to finish -- and are watching (even supporting) without taking any action: destruction of pension systems, increases in airborne poisons, fewer covered by health insurance, attempting to put social security on a shaky basis, exporting hundreds of thousands of jobs oversees, developed a training ground for terrorists in Iraq, and ruined American standing in the world.

I'll stick with the dumb ones like Pelosi, Kennedy, and Byrd.
 

Runner

Cyburbian
Messages
566
Points
17
In basic terms I think it comes down to the basic motives and priorities of the individual.

Seems to me that most planners (at least those employed by a government or NGO), and other government employees as well for that matter, would tend to be liberal even if they did not recognize it in themselves. After all, being dedicated and working towards a public good, would seem to be naturally the realm of the liberal. It takes the pooling of, and expenditure of, money (i.e. taxes) to get the job done.

The fiscal conservative on the other hand focuses more on the private sector (themselves and their clan) as a priority. For example, all the nice folks who ran Enron or who served on the Cheney energy task force.

I can only believe that a true fiscal conservative would serve in a government position only to undermine it. They can not really believe in such a thing as a public good. Sort of hold their nose and sacrifice themselves so that they can work towards achieving benefits for themselves and their clan, or possibly to achieve fundamentalist religious goals.
 

greginboise

Cyburbian
Messages
97
Points
4
Hmmm. Budget surpluses were a result of a Republican congress (remember the Contract with America?). Along with the fortunate early death of "HillaryCare".

Peace? As in deliberately ignoring the threat posed by the Islamofascists as far back as 1993? Didn't seem to work out so well, in retrospect.

Finally, the economy tanking was a direct result of the Clinton administration, the recession having started before Bush was even inaugurated.
 

giff57

Corn Burning Fool
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
5,416
Points
32
greginboise said:
Finally, the economy tanking was a direct result of the Clinton administration, the recession having started before Bush was even inaugurated.
So, cutting taxes and increasing spending didn't have a thing to do with speeding up the process....... I love conservative economics.
 

Runner

Cyburbian
Messages
566
Points
17
giff57 said:
So, cutting taxes and increasing spending didn't have a thing to do with speeding up the process....... I love conservative economics.
Conservative econoimics = voodoo economics
 

Wulf9

Member
Messages
923
Points
22
greginboise said:
Hmmm. Budget surpluses were a result of a Republican congress (remember the Contract with America?). Along with the fortunate early death of "HillaryCare".

Peace? As in deliberately ignoring the threat posed by the Islamofascists as far back as 1993? Didn't seem to work out so well, in retrospect.

Finally, the economy tanking was a direct result of the Clinton administration, the recession having started before Bush was even inaugurated.
It amazes me that conservatives take credit for every positive Democrat-era economy. And they blame every Republican-era recession on the Democrats.

If the Republican legislature was so successful at delivering a good economy during the Clinton era, why don't we have a good economy now -- with Republican control of the White House and both houses of Congress and no Democrat president to get in the way? They have had five years to turn it around.

The answer, of course, is that this down economy is a typical Republican economy. Monopolies are favored over small business. Monopolies are favored over competition. And government programs and spending is virtually uncontrolled. Instead of "tax and spend," the Republicans "borrow and spend." If you are a young Republican, be prepared to pay back those bills during your lifetime.
 

eightiesfan

Cyburbian
Messages
112
Points
6
giff57 said:
Huge tractors use more fuel but take less trips across the field so the result is less energy inputs.

Only corn under irrigation would do anything with the aquifers, I did a quick look for a percentage of irrigated vs non-irrigated but didn't find anything. My feeling is that most is not irrigated. It is true as the demand for corn increases that this woulld perhaps be more of a problem as more marginal land is farmed.

Technology is reducing the amounts of fertilizers needed to sustain good yields.






Read this paper then get back to me with your sources.

Most of the research cited that supports your claim comes from the 80's. Production technologies have come a long way since then. Many of these studies also do not count the by products of ethanol production in the calculations.
No offense, but don't you think the link you supplied may be a little biased?
 

giff57

Corn Burning Fool
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
5,416
Points
32
eightiesfan said:
No offense, but don't you think the link you supplied may be a little biased?

Perhaps, that is why I asked to see your references.
 

greginboise

Cyburbian
Messages
97
Points
4
Runner said:
Conservative econoimics = voodoo economics
Brilliant!

Regurgitating tired cliches learned at the feet of Marxist university hacks, er, "professors", is no way to go through life, son.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,464
Points
29
greginboise said:
Hmmm. Budget surpluses were a result of a Republican congress (remember the Contract with America?). Along with the fortunate early death of "HillaryCare".

Peace? As in deliberately ignoring the threat posed by the Islamofascists as far back as 1993? Didn't seem to work out so well, in retrospect.

Finally, the economy tanking was a direct result of the Clinton administration, the recession having started before Bush was even inaugurated.
One cannot credit the Republican Congress alone for the surpluses of the Clinton era. His administration provided as much or more fiscal discipline as ever discussed by the Contract With America (which pretty much faded away). Given Republican control of Congress for almost a decade now, are the current fiscal debacles still the fault of Clinton? The only thing that matters now is funnelling money to defense contractors and Republican lobbyist controlled "consultants" Billions have been lost in Iraq-just gone missing.

Paul Volcker warns the entire financial system will soon collapse-but, that's what you guys want, so that all government activities go away and we are forced to depend on your fascist megachurches for any remnant of social services Memorize this Jack Chick tract before we give you the bowl of soup! Read Howard Kurtz-he outright says this-he also pompously proclaims that we need to eliminate cities, government social services, and the like because "whites" are not breeding fast enough, and you know we have to outbreed the yellow and brown hordes, right?

And, how is the ivnasion of Iraq dealing with the Islamofascists? Sadaam, who Rummy and friends were supplying with nerve gas fairly recently, was definitely not an "Islamofascist" by any means. Thanks to our lovely intervention, what was a secular dictatorship is now crawling with training camps, women are being assaulted by our Shiite allies in Basra as the British stand by, Osama is still hanging out in the frontier provinces of our "ally" Pakistan (who is now nuclear armed, by the way), American sabre rattling has given the mullahs a reason to crack down in Iran (new fundamentalist President). And, back in Afghanistan, the "government" controls Kabul, warlords are busy in the opium business, and the Taliban are gaining strength because the only thing that has gone right in Afghanistan is the contract for a major pipeline project has been approved.

Boy, the campaign is sure going well.

And, I'll point out, the United States largely created the threat through CIA interventions in Afghanistan, anyway. THAT, my friend, was a bipartisan example of realpolitic-but the Reagan Administration and the first Bush Administration really ramped things up. You are also forgetting the incompetence of the Bush transition team=which ignored repeated warnings about terrorist threats from Al Qaeda.

As for the economy, thaty's too complicated and silly to blame any one president. W is certainly not doing anything to solve the long term structural problems, but then, I question whether any president can. Giving tax breaks to speculators and CEOs to move more production offshore certainly doesn't help. And Clinton's gutting of the welfare state will certainly catch up with us eventually.
 

jordanb

Cyburbian
Messages
3,232
Points
25
greginboise said:
Brilliant!

Regurgitating tired cliches learned at the feet of Marxist university hacks, er, "professors", is no way to go through life, son.
"Voodoo Economics" was a term coined by George HW Bush to describe Reaganomics. I'm pretty sure he's not a marxist....
 

Runner

Cyburbian
Messages
566
Points
17
jordanb said:
"Voodoo Economics" was a term coined by George HW Bush to describe Reaganomics. I'm pretty sure he's not a marxist....
Thanks jordanb, I thought everyone would have made that connection... ;)

and I'm not sure that College Station has ever been known as a hotbed of Marxism, but I guess it depends on ones perspective…
 
Top