Friday, April 17, 2009
Here's to Public Transpo!
This is no joke. While I've never been on a train that packed. I have ridden on a bus that full. One of the tactics the busses do is idle forward a little bit and then slam on the brakes so everyone expels the air from their lungs and compress forward a little bit. This makes slightly more room in the back of the bus for others to get pressed inside. Clearly Al Gore is on to something. Public transportation is better for the environment, therefore we should be willing to make sacrifices such as overcrowding in order to improve the life quality of trees and the spotted owl. Of course by making sacrifices he means that he will cut down on his Gulfstream G5, and personal limousine ridership, because we all have to make sacrifices in our own way, at our own individual levels.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
clearly your perception of public transportation is limited to youtube from Japan.
ReplyDeleteGet on the trax line in Utah and see that not all public transportation ends up this way.
Clearly you're a douche. I'm tired of your highminded B.S. You talk like you're the smartest man on earth. It's obinoxious.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, my perception is not limited to youtube from Japan as I mentioned in my post - if you had actually read it - that I have personally had similar experiences riding packed busses on multiple occasions, and overseas ridden on busses equally as packed as the train in the video. My problem is not with public transportation, my problem is with liberal-socialists who feel the perogative to litigate people into public transportation through various means regardless of how much it may invonvenience them.
ReplyDeleteYou are an angry little man aren't you GWH? Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I think you are an ignorant subspecies from myself - although your reaction to my comment leads me to think that a lot of people don't agree with you and so you are getting all chihuahua on me.
ReplyDeleteI am obnoxious?! Obnoxious is post after post after post about how the liberals are attacking your every move and how little hope there is in this world for freedom and happiness. It's like the boy who cried "socialist." Eventually we tune it out regardless of how real the threat may be.
Did you hear what the brethren admonished about such hopelessness in general conference? They even warned against pessimism in blogs specifically - didn't that have any effect on you?
Let me ask you this, would your opinion of this issue change if you knew that THE CHURCH PAYS for transit passes for all of its employees that work in downtown Salt Lake? Light rail, buses- the church is using resources to pay for people to use those means of transportation.
Plus -
If I am being high minded simply because I disagreed with your article, than that would make you the opposite of me or low minded. I am okay with that.
Th bottom line of public transport is cost. Here in the United States most trains and bus systems operate on a sinking defficit. Here in Phoenix our public transport system is going to be $45million in debt even after Obamas $30 million dollar stimulis dump into the black hole.
ReplyDeleteThere is no reason taxpayors should subsidize fruitless city ventures. If the Japanese can turn a buck by cramming them in like sardines good for them.
I can only imagine being crammed like that into a train here in phoenix, no thanks Id rather ride in my air conditioned car.
Thanks for the insightful comment Thunderlump, exactly my point. If it's more economical (cost, comfort, etc.) for a person to ride public transport than drive themself, then more power to them. I will say again for those who are a little slow, that what I have an issue with is when politicians legislate people against their freedom of choice into riding public transportation or using their tax money to subsidize failure.
ReplyDeleteGovernment is a deficit venture. Period. Governments can't only do things that make money. Law enforcement, fire protection, military, roads, you name it, these things cost money and most of the time run in the red.
ReplyDeleteSubsidizing failure, using business logic, is what the government does. Governments spend money on the services the public needs or think they need. The fees and fines that individuals pay are to help offset enforcement costs, but are not meant to fund the ventures into profitability. Think of how much you would have to pay for a stamp if that were the case. Governments are not in place to make money. The only money making ventures the government has been involved in that I know of are loans through the FED and we know where that has gotten us.
Taxes are the revenues that are collected to pay for these services. They aren't "making a quick buck" nor are they supposed to. Overspending not under revenue generating is where I think you are going with this whole thing.
I am not slow. I have read your post and you offer no proof or direct argument of anything where government has legislated anyone into taking public transportation causing the problems you present. In fact, the people in your video probably all chose to ride the train for one reason or another. If you are complaining about Al Gore's green hypocrisy, fine because that is like shooting fish in a barrel. For me, I have never heard anything close to the government saying that we are going to be forced to ride public transportation.
Perhaps you are right. There is a big liberal conspiracy orchestrated by bus manufacturers in an effort to make sure that we are uncomfortable all in the sake of being able to better market environmentalism and further the repression of the people. On the other hand, you could be really over doing it.
I never had any hopes for governments to be money making ventures. My belief is a government needs to operate on a zero balance just like average joe citizen. A proper government should budget appropriately so that income equals expenditure and anything left over is saved for the future. If there is nothing left over, fine. If programs cost more than what they have available to spend, then programs must be cut. That is my belief of the proper government.
ReplyDeleteNow, as for James stating that you don't believe the government is legislating people into inconvenience, how about this article:
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/25/california-to-reduce-carbon-emissions-by-banning-black-cars/
Granted the color of your car may or may not be an inconvenience depending on the person, but the fact that I may not have the freedom to choose to have a black car is not only inconvenient to me, it is wrong.
Since I'm clearly looking for your royal approval, I hope this comment isn't "over-doing" it for you.
James,
ReplyDeleteArguing that Government is a deficit proposition is not a valid argument. Niether is the argument that because "The Church" pays for bus pass's for its workers therefore, public transportation must be good.
I don't remember the constitutional ammendment that requires tax payors to pay for a public transport system, maybe you can enlighten me?
My point is that Government should be limited by its revenue. If I go purchase a new car which I can't afford chances are I will fail finacially. In my example Government has over spent on public transport here in phoenix.
Again Ill use myself as an example If I am over spending on my cell phone bill and home phone bill I will look for ways to consolidate and cut spending.
The Government on the other hand beleives it is different somehow and can just keep doing what its doing bleeding red ink. Government is exactly like your household finances, if a service is bleeding red ink it need to either be consolidated or cut otherwise you go bankrupt.
Two weeks ago Standard and Poor's lowered municipal bond's credit rating because they have over spent. Just like your personal credit if your over your credit limit and your asking for more you will have bad credit.
The problem is most municipal governments are in this bad credit rating. It's illogical for governments to keep spending more than their tax revenue for any project.
Thank you for SOME support of your argument GWH. Although California looking to keep out black cars is a bit of stretch to the government legislating people to take public transportation, I see your point and I don't disagree with the fundamentals of it.
ReplyDeleteAnd Thunderlump, to say that government should be limited by its revenue is part of the problem. Mainly because that means government can do what they want, then just increase their revenue from higher taxes and then they can break even. Like I said, it is an incomplete argument and could be viewed as a possible window or endorsement of higher taxes to simply say that the government needs to break even.
My argument was completely valid. Police departments, fire departments, these things can't directly break even unless you have people pay a 1000 bucks for a traffic ticket or 20,000 every time your house has a fire. That is an unreasonable burden. Therefore, these programs tend to consume money not generate it. The hope is of course that through these protections the consumers themselves will live in the area, spend money in the area and generate tax revenue back through the cities. Even then you can't quantify that on a balance sheet to show a program as being a direct "break even". So some programs will appear on paper as a loss, and in some cases that should be okay.
Now, I agree that governments spend too much and operate on too many programs on the whole. But the last few years in Utah and Colorado, both states have functioned below their means. West Jordan Utah, the states 4th most populated city also was able to offer all city services in the black overall. That city has also not raised taxes in almost 14 years. So I am a believer that it is possible.
U are all gay. GWH you sound like a little girl. James get off your tower of perfection, Thunderlump, keep on lumpin.
ReplyDelete