Posted on 05/11/2011 9:42:03 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Um...no. I am conservative and even deep down inside I have no problem with mass/public transit.
Of course, if I worked in a city where parking was expensive and traffic was awful, I would most likely use transit.
EXACTLY the point...
Here is the DC area the workers steal the money from the parking and no one goes to jail. This is what I don’t like.
VERY good point. Which make me wonder. Obama grew up on a relativel small island which a care can circle in a couple of hours and in the center of which is a mountain range. I doubt that Barry was itching to get his driver’s license at age 16 like the rest of us. After retirement Harry Truman actually drove himself from Missouri to DC , Canb you imagine Barry—or any of the Princelings we call ex-presidents doing that nowadays?
This author is an idiot and probably doesn’t have anything else to write about.
I don't think he was addressing you specifically, but conservatives generally.
Indeed. I don't want to dismiss transit completely, it definitely is a practical way to get around in densly populated areas, but for long distance traveling or going from one suburb to another for work, it doesn't work, and it isn't cost effective to build out such systems to serve these areas.
The government would be wise though to not make driving too expensive, without revenue from gas taxes, all mass transit systems would stop running due to lack of funds.
And, BTW, do you have a theory about why the government does not subsidize bus companies? Many more people would use them if they were upgraded and ran more frequently.
It’s not the mass/public transit that is the problem,
but being forced into it that is the problem.
What I object to are the systems that can't pay for themselves and rely on heavy taxpayer subsidies to get by.
It makes them feel vaguely European, which is also why they bathe infrequently and pretend to care about the World Cup.
Actually, one reason is a lot of us don’t live in cities, and mass transit in rural America would fail to meet the personal and economic needs of people living out here, even if one beggared the economy as a whole to construct such a system. (How much ridership will the Topeka to Salina, KS route via Paxico, Wamego, Manhattan, Chapman, Abilene, and Solomon actually garner? At what cost?)
Conservatives also tend to be more likely to reflect on the fact that others have different conditions than their own, and therefore different needs, so that urban-dwelling conservatives are aware that, however desirable mass-transit use may be in their own circumstances, foisting mass transit on the country as a whole would be a disaster.
Conservatives don’t like ANY of the crap Obozo has planned for his new utopian dictatorship, to wit:
A modern tyrant no longer needs to post burly machinegun toting men on street corners. He controls a population with REGULATIONS and PAPER.
Want to work? Need a WORK PERMIT!
Want a place to live? Need a RESIDENCY PERMIT!
Want to travel? (Only on PUBLIC TRANSIT, of course.) Need a TRAVEL PERMIT or INTERNAL PASSPORT!
Want to eat? Need that FOOD RATION BOOK!
And draconian penalties await those who fail to obey the regulations or help others do so. That’s when the burly armed men appear. And they will just be “following orders.” Now where have we heard THAT phrase before??
“That could NEVER HAPPEN HERE,” say you?
That’s what many of you said about Obama!
I have no problem with public transportation as long as the people that are using it, and ONLY the people that are using it are the ones paying for it. I DO have a problem with public transportation when my stolen tax money is used to subsidize it.
“archaic, 19th century technology like trains”
False. Trains are the best high tech way to move heavy freight, which is precisely why AMTRAK and highspeed nostalgia should get the h out of the way.
If we truly had competent central planning, the central planner would plan to get the heavy trucks off the highways where they are pounding the pavement and requiring frequent rebuilding.
The real problem with central planning is that it always becomes pressure group du jour planning. In contrast the invisible hand does the same thing that competent central planning would do while avoiding the overhead of the central planners and avoiding the costs of the pressure group du jour.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.