The Automobile Subsidy
in [Drive]
|
From: hancock4 on 4 Nov 2009 12:47 On Nov 4, 9:46 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > That's the nature of the system. The original error was allowing the > council of 9 the power they have today. The system of constitutional > interpetation started to be rigged a long time ago. You know, if government was as evil as you constantly complain, they would've found an excuse (as you so often say) to lock you up forever. But you're out on the street, free to do as you please, and probably making a good living. That suggests your arguments are nonsense. When they come to take you away let us know.
From: hancock4 on 4 Nov 2009 12:49 On Nov 4, 10:18 am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > One of the biggets problems with sprawl is that the taxpayers who live > in the older areas of the city end up paying for all the new > infrastructure that are needed by new developments. In CA we have a > law called "Mello-Roos" which basically avoids this whole problem. > Mello-Roos requires developers to sell bonds to fund new > infrastructure; the eventual buyers of the new homes pay off the bonds > through a special assessment on their property taxes over the next 20 > years. That's nice for Calif, but a problem exactly as you describe elsewhere. A lot of people have selfish greedy interests in creating more sprawl. They run businesses that support it or they like living far away. The problem is that the rest of supports their lifestyle through higher taxes and utility fees.
From: hancock4 on 4 Nov 2009 12:51 On Nov 4, 11:45 am, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote: > These "subsidies" are mostly the product of the fevered anti-car > mind. Tolls and dedicated taxes pay for nearly all the cost of the > roads (the exceptions being mostly very local roads). No, they do not.
From: Brent on 4 Nov 2009 13:11 On 2009-11-04, hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Nov 4, 9:46�am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> That's the nature of the system. The original error was allowing the >> council of 9 the power they have today. The system of constitutional >> interpetation started to be rigged a long time ago. > You know, if government was as evil as you constantly complain, they > would've found an excuse (as you so often say) to lock you up forever. > > But you're out on the street, free to do as you please, and probably > making a good living. > > That suggests your arguments are nonsense. Lacking any real arguments to make I see. Your attacks on me don't change the manipulations and increases in power of the supreme court which are facts of history. I do find the 'if you were right things would be much worse' argument amusing. The frog does boil slowly. Like all productive people I'd be much better off if government was kept in it's cage. Instead the giant parasite grows ever more burdensome. > When they come to take you away let us know. That would be a violation of the law. (yeah, I know, you didn't read those bills and don't think they exist)
From: James Robinson on 4 Nov 2009 13:14
Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4(a)bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> >> When they come to take you away let us know. > > That would be a violation of the law. (yeah, I know, you didn't read > those bills and don't think they exist) They'll just use Extraordinary Rendition, or whatever they call it next. |