The Automobile Subsidy
in [Drive]
|
From: Matthew Russotto on 8 Nov 2009 21:10 In article <293af5hp48mp6ugvn6o7iqecafbm5paf75(a)4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Last time on rec.autos.driving, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew >Russotto) said: > >>In article <2h57f5pn5v3ecrn8buj3co70idpecfoipt(a)4ax.com>, >>Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>Last time on rec.autos.driving, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew >>>Russotto) said: >>> >>>>>>It's easy to prove your point if you just make up numbers. >>>>> >>>>>Are you claiming that their numbers are made up? If so, you'll >>>>>cheerfully supply the correct numbers as well as your source for them, >>>>>right? >>>> >>>>I'm not going to go through such lengths to argue with a hit-and-run >>>>poster quoting from whatever his latest holy book is. >>> >>>Translation: you cannot refuse my points with substantive points of >>>your own, so you resort to Ad Homonem attacks. >> >>You don't have any points. You're not the person who posted the >>numbers. > >Nitpick all you like, the fact remains: you can't refute the points I >posted. You didn't post any points. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: John David Galt on 9 Nov 2009 19:11 Scott in SoCal wrote: > [Excerpt from "Suburban Nation" by Andres Duany and Elizabeth > Plater-Zybeck, pp. 94-7.] Why do you keep quoting those progress-hating liars?
From: John David Galt on 9 Nov 2009 19:39 >>> Automobile use is the intelligent choice for Americans because >> it is man's greatest enabling technology, and would continue to be worth >> using at ten times the price. Whether we're rich enough to do so is >> another question, but make no mistake: if those who would ban, restrict, >> or more heavily tax automobile use succeed, we will all be much poorer >> for their efforts. And that's no accident. They are at war with your >> right to enjoy life. > straight out of the mouthpiece of the reason foundation Funny, I've always thought of them as MY mouthpiece, which is why I've been a subscriber since 1977. > notwithstanding that oil prices and supplies are not going to be > stable forever http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/04/where_to_put_al.html
From: hancock4 on 9 Nov 2009 19:43 On Nov 7, 2:59 pm, John David Galt <j...(a)diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote: > Scott in SoCal wrote: > > Automobile use is the intelligent choice for Americans because > > it is man's greatest enabling technology, and would continue to be worth > using at ten times the price. Well then it's time for the users of the automobile pay for the full price if providing it. Now automotive users are subsidized by general tax dollars, like property taxes. A Washington Post editorial, posted here not long ago, said auto user fees covered only 60% of the costs. Others say it's more, but at best it's 90%. >They are at war with your > right to enjoy life. Sitting in a traffic jam is not anyone's idea of enjoying life. Inventing strawmen "those who would ban automobiles" to blame for inadequate roads is ridiculous. Very, very few people want to ban automobiles and they're lumped in with the "earth is flat" or the "Martians have taken over" crowd; that is, not taken seriously at all. Roads are extremely costly to build. Land is finite and building a road today--as opposed to the 1950s--means bulldozing homes, stores, factories, and offices, which ain't cheap to do. Naturally the business people who will be shut down and the homeowners who will be kicked out (or worse, left against a busy highway outside their bedroom window) object to such projects and with good reason. Their quality life is worth something to them, you know. Raising tolls or taxes to pay for needed roads is political suicide.
From: hancock4 on 9 Nov 2009 19:49
On Nov 5, 9:11 am, Orval Fairbairn <o_r_fairbairn(a)earth_link.net> wrote: > ... but roads are far more useful than transit -- anybody can use them; > they are compatible with the equipment that uses other roads; they have > direct access on a 24/7 schedule; their use doesn't depend on somebody > else's schedule. You don't listen to traffic reports, do you? Most motor trips, short and long, require checking the clock first. No point going out during rush hours since roads are jammed. No point going out during peak weekend shopping or leisure travel since roads are jammed. Our network of old roads also requires heavy maintenance which means detours and closures. This must be checked for in advance to avoid jamups, too. Even in rural places or at 3 a.m. the jamups are terrible from maintenance work. Then there's accidents which shut down roads until it's all cleaned up. |