From: Jim Yanik on
"Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm(a)> wrote in

> You have to realize who you are dealing with ... these posters who
> constantly harp about the "car subsidy" are posting from the railroad
> newsgroup, most of them live in the concrete jungle, and they are
> victims of one-dimensional railroad-like thinking patterns ...

yes,but THEY want the power to determine OUR lifestyles.

In -every- facet of it,too.

Obama has said he'd like gas prices to climb to $10 a gallon,
only -slowly-,so the frogs don't know they're being boiled.
He wants to move people to public transpo.
Thus,his no-drill ANWR policy.

Jim Yanik
dot com
From: jim on

Brent wrote:

> Go ahead, put all the taxes collected directly on driving and all the
> taxes collected on commerce directly from driving (sales taxes on auto
> parts, auto service, tires, gasoline, etc) to the roads and only the
> roads. The loser will be everything else tax money is spent on.

That is a false statement and you only believe it because you spend
your entire life reading propaganda from the oil companies. But even if
it were true, it still would be incredibly stupid system for everyone
who is not in the business of selling oil. What motive is there for the
average citizen to want a system that only works well at maximum

The simple fact of the matter is a large portion of government revenue
is coming from borrowing so some of the cost of roads, like many other
things, are being paid for not by us but by future taxpayers. Petroleum
is a resource that is being depleted. Every drop we use today is a drop
that won't be available to future generations.

Somehow we expect the future to not only pay our bills but to also do
it in an economy without the benefit of cheap petroleum. Plus they will
be saddled with a massive infrastructure that is crumbling. And not only
is the infrastructure massive and crumbling it was also designed with
only one design criteria in mind --- to maximize the consumption of oil.

What your oil company propaganda has convinced you is a beautiful
system is in fact nothing more than a recipe for eventual disaster. This
will be the big bubble that makes all the other bubbles look like toy


> >> Go ahead and eliminate all other tax money that goes to roads BUT end
> >> all diversion of taxes on motorists to other purposes. Also taxes on the
> >> sale of automobiles, parts, fuels, service etc go to the roads. That
> >> is all those things that are for driving or trucking nearly
> >> exclusively. Now see who is being subsidized.
> >>
> >> The amount of money currently flowing into even general taxes based on
> >> people driving should be an astoundingly huge figure that will have most
> >> of the 'true cost of driving people' scrambling to come up with excuses
> >> why those taxes can't be classified as driving related... maybe because
> >> someone somewhere might buy an alternator from an '89 buick to use
> >> in a science project from a junk yard. Odd exceptions like that. But we
> >> all know that those sales are entirely because people drive.
From: John S on
Larry Sheldon wrote:
> Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article <7luanvF3ffi5sU1(a)>,
>> Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon(a)> wrote:
>>> We need a USENET for roundabouts.
>> They are.
>> They are not. They are heavily subsidized by drivers.
> Circulating arguments meet Charlie on the MTA.

Two new light rail projects are moving forward, one in New Jersey, one
in Philadelphia. What do they have in common? They will be funded by
the Delaware River Port Authority. Where does DRPA get its money? From
road bridge tolls. Soak drivers, subsidize trains. In this case, one
of the trains will roll on top of the Market St Subway. Why even build
new routes when you can use bridge toll money to build transit systems
right on top of existing ones?

For other examples of such subsidies from drivers, look at the finances
at nearly every transit system in the USA, exhibit A is New York City.
From: Orval Fairbairn on
In article <6bkkf5lm4q5h6k7e9gqpamjgb60uh6kuis(a)>,
Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)> wrote:

> Last time on, Orval Fairbairn
> <o_r_fairbairn(a)> said:
> >> >Slaves to the automobile??? Far better than being slaves to the
> >> >fixed-guideway and somebody else's schedules!
> >>
> >> So I take it you drive everywhere you need to go, and never travel by
> >> commercial aircraft?
> >
> >Sometime by commercial
> So I guess you're OK with being a slave to somebody else's schedule
> after all.

No -- I can take it or leave it! If I want to fly to an outlying area, I
take my own plane. It pays to be able to tell the "masters" to go to

Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.
From: Orval Fairbairn on
In article <kdkkf5lrg9taqcb96veu5j10gfumrqo81r(a)>,
Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)> wrote:

> Last time on, russotto(a) (Matthew
> Russotto) said:
> >In article <680if5tdsm4dssulp1t6qp9db9e23uucs6(a)>,
> >Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)> wrote:
> >
> >>Owning and operating a car costs many thousands of dollars per year.
> >>Most American families own more than one. Imagine how much higher your
> >>standard of living could be if you could save the costs of owning,
> >>licensing, insuring, maintaining, and parking even one of your cars.
> >
> >You mean _lower_? Because the few grand we'd save wouldn't nearly make
> >up for the inability for me and my wife to simultaneously have the
> >freedom of movement our automobiles provide.
> Heh - you call sitting in a traffic jam "freedom of movement?"

...... if you don't live in a people kennel in an urban jungle, breathing

There is a whole BIG country out there that is accessable only via
private automobile or aircraft! There is little to compare with flying
along the Bitterroot Range east of Jackson Hole, looking at the contrast
of snoe, red-brown earth, clouds and sky.

Public transport gives a VERY poor facsimile of the experience.

Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.