The Automobile Subsidy
in [Drive]
|
From: rshersh on 11 Nov 2009 13:10 On Nov 11, 8:23 am, Jim Yanik <jya...(a)abuse.gov> wrote: > "Scott M. Kozel" <koze...(a)comcast.net> wrote innews:hddi0o$2bj$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: > > > 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. > > -- what did Obama have to do with the run up of gas prices during the Bush Adm? who was responsible for that? and who got the money? it certainly did not benefit US transportation and btw was he responsible for Ida's effect of Gulf production. what are gas prices going to be like after a year of BIG gulf hurricanes? you are going to continue to believe in very dumb luck And btw it would take about 10 yrs for ANWR oil to hit and with our usage it would be the proverbial spit in the ocean so you want to be beholden to the House of Saud forever and ever???? no matter what you may believe, at least President Obama wants to do something. What is your solution?????
From: Bolwerk on 11 Nov 2009 15:19 John S wrote: > Larry Sheldon wrote: >> Matthew Russotto wrote: >>> In article <7luanvF3ffi5sU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >>> Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> 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. > > http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20091027_DRPA_opts_for_E__Market_Street_surface_line.html And then look at how state and federal balance of payments almost never favor those transit-centric areas, at least partly because the cities/states in question pay more in taxes than they get back in services. At least part of the reason for the imbalance is to fund highways in faraway places. Soak transit users, subsidize drivers - just do it differently, and it's all right. Pointing to a few bridge tolls and the small minority of the highway trust fund that goes to fund transit is hardly fair. BTW, NYC's Subway had a farebox recovery ratio in 2007 that was similar to the ratio of drivers' tolls and fees that typically cover highway operations.
From: Brent on 11 Nov 2009 15:46 On 2009-11-11, Bolwerk <bolwerk(a)gmail.com> wrote: > John S wrote: >> Larry Sheldon wrote: >>> Matthew Russotto wrote: >>>> In article <7luanvF3ffi5sU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >>>> Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon(a)gmail.com> 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. >> >> http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20091027_DRPA_opts_for_E__Market_Street_surface_line.html > > And then look at how state and federal balance of payments almost never > favor those transit-centric areas, at least partly because the > cities/states in question pay more in taxes than they get back in > services. At least part of the reason for the imbalance is to fund > highways in faraway places. Scammers always go after the cash. Democracy works by getting people to vote themselves money from the treasury. The political office holders just work the system. > Soak transit users, subsidize drivers - > just do it differently, and it's all right. Pointing to a few bridge > tolls and the small minority of the highway trust fund that goes to fund > transit is hardly fair. When transit is nearly entirely funded by people who don't use it, it is quite fair. Roads are funded almost entirely by people who use roads directly. Then there is all the tax revenue generated by automotive and trucking businesses. A fair direct cost scheme would mean a tax savings for drivers. But nobody is proposing a fair scheme because that would mean less money for government overall. The idea of these 'tax driving more' things is either to find the pain threshold for driving to maximize revenue or to increase power with putitive discouraging taxation on driving. That's all that those in and near government seek. The power to run our lives and to take our our wealth.
From: Bolwerk on 11 Nov 2009 16:12 Brent wrote: > On 2009-11-11, Bolwerk <bolwerk(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Pointing to a few bridge >> tolls and the small minority of the highway trust fund that goes to fund >> transit is hardly fair. > > When transit is nearly entirely funded by people who don't use it, it is > quite fair. Yes, in that hypothetical situation, I suppose that would be so.
From: Brent on 11 Nov 2009 16:35
On 2009-11-11, Bolwerk <bolwerk(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Brent wrote: >> On 2009-11-11, Bolwerk <bolwerk(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Pointing to a few bridge >>> tolls and the small minority of the highway trust fund that goes to fund >>> transit is hardly fair. >> >> When transit is nearly entirely funded by people who don't use it, it is >> quite fair. > > Yes, in that hypothetical situation, I suppose that would be so. Nice editing. But it is a fair argument to point out that transit is mostly funded by people who don't use it. |