Dahon.Steve

This has to be one of the most stupidest article I've ever seen.

https://oregonlive.com/news/oregonian...8361300721.xml

A woman by the name of Shirley Cromwell couldn't afford to repair her car because she's a low income wage earner and now has to take the bus (2 hour commute) to work. It's two hours both ways so the commute is actually an hour to work. BIG DEAL! CRY ME A RIVER! A national program in Oregon is now going to allow Ms. Cromwell to borrow money so she can buy a new vehicle or repair her old one. This is insanity.

First. I don't consider her two hour commute long. There are millions of people who commute longer than her every day of the week. I wish my commute was two hours because it's closer to 2 hours and 40 minutes in total and there are many who travel longer.

Second. How is this low income earner going to be able to afford a new car or repay back the loans when she can't even pay for repairs! This is what's insane about the whole situation. Mrs. Cromwell's problem is not the two hour commute each day but the fact that she can NO LONGER afford personal motorized transportation! Low income earners must make use of public transportation or they'll spend every discretionary cent on gas, tolls, insurance, parking, maintenance and repairs. I can see Mrs. Cromwell declaring bankruptcy a few years down the road once the burden of repaying the loans catches up to her.

I repeat, her commute is NOT long and I don't consider and hour in the morning and another during the evening to be excessive. It's just laziness. She would rather drive a vehicle and be dead broke each week without a cent in her pocket than save money by using public transprotation.

Too often, I see many people like her. There's a young couple who live in my building and have two new cars but can't save any money for a new home. They drive their daughter to school each day when it's only 4 blocks away! The supermarket is just across the street but they still drive regardless. I don't get it.

The article states the loans are going to be made for people who make less than $34,000.00 thousand a year with a family of four! FOLKS! A person making that little money supporting that many people SHOULD NOT be getting into debt and driving a car! I used to make 34K a year not too long ago and that was nothing! Trust me. I guess that family will be eating beans and rice every day of the year. Incredible.

Yet. The article states automobile owners make more money than those who don't. I don't know if that's true. Lets look at the situation in the article. Do you think allowing Mrs. Cromwell to borrow thousands of dollars is going to improve her situation? NO. Do you think a person supporting a family of four making 34K is going to be better off once they're loaded with debt? NO.

I would like to know several factors before we determine that motorist make more money than those who don't. I know quite a few people in New York City making six figures and don't own a car. Lets get this straight. Education and experience are probably the most important factors in determining your income level and not motor transport. Do we really think Mrs. Cromwell is magically going to make more money once she's burried with a new loan? A low income wage earner is that way NOT due to the lack of motor transportation but because of little or no education. Period.

It's like walking down the street and seeing a guy with a nice expensive dress jacket. It's foolish to say the jacket is what made him financially well off. An employer is not going to pay you top dollar regardless of what jacket you're wearing or car you're driving. Mrs. Crowell can look for a 100K job in a BMW but unless she's qualified for the job and is a highly skilled professional, she'll always be a low income wage earner. And her car will aways be a financial burden.

The study states the average person with a car made $275.00 dollars more than those who take public transportation. I'd like to see the education level of those who did make more money. If this were true, a car certainly didn't help Mrs. Cromwell at all. There are millions of people just like her today that can't get a decent paying job and live hand to mouth because of their poor education and work skills. I suspect those who were able to make an additional $275.00 were professionals who could have commanded that additional salary even if they biked to work!

But too often, these stats are made to twist the real truth.

LittleBigMan

Steve, I think you're picking the wrong battle, here.

I think that our car-centric transportation system has victimized the poor. We have too many cars, anyway. Why not make it easier for people who are struggling?

Besides, if Ms. Cromwell gets a brand-new car, or can keep her old one fixed, I'll be breathing less crap as she passes me by on my commute.

My son's been using mass transit to go to work and school for years. It takes him over 4 hours of commute time every day he works. If he drove, it would take him about an hour and twenty minutes total, at the most. He's wasting his hours away standing, waiting for trains and buses. I have to admire his tenacity, but I wouldn't commute that long for a million bucks.

alanbikehouston

Last year, the Federal government gave lawyers and other professionals up to $100,000 off the taxes they owed if they bought a new large truck or SUV. And you are worried about "grants to the poor"?

iceratt

My thirty minute commute, feels long, to me. I could shave off 5 minutes by driving, but I would hate the experience.

I agree, poor people buying cars to get to work, is stupid. How many additional hours, would one need to work, to pay the difference between owning and opperating a car, and taking public transportation, on $17/ hr?

DieselDan

The tax exemption was to protect farmers buying large trucks for hauling commidties and equipment. The exemption became a back door loophole when certian, oversized SUVs became heavier then 6000 lbs GVR, then other busniesses could then claim them as an exemption. The tax law was changed for 2005, you now have to prove the vehicle is used for agriculture use.

SamHouston

Mrs Cromwell would do well to attempt to find work in her area. She's already a low wage earner, if she found herself a low wage close to home it would dramatically reduce her expenses while allowing her more time to find a way out of her situation or at the least make it a more pleasant situation to become accustomed to.

As far as her freedom from the bus lines goes, fuel, insurance and repairs give her that same freedom when she doesn't pay for any of them. It's very likely that the money she spent on her vehicle budget could take her to the grocery and out with her grandchildren in a taxi and leave enough for the occasional renter when a car is absolutely essential to get something done.

Her example is poor one of how folks could live wihout their own personal car if hey wouldn't panic at the very thought. She's 57 years old which means it would be hard for her to find a job in her area. If I had the resources to start a program that's trying to accomplish what this trap the poor in a car program is doing I'd try to help them solve their transportation ills by educating them on how to live without such a huge financial burden.[and if a singular problem opposed them, help them solve it, like hooking Cromwell here up with a proper job hunt program] A family of four at $34,000.00 a year (one of the qualifiers for the program) could live happily without a car eating anywhere from a quarter to a third of that income. They'd still be "poor" (it's not bad) but they'd do much better than surviving. Paying a mortgage off on that income even paves the way for retirement.

There are so many better ways, all hidden by the TV and the Joneses.

LittleBigMan

This is not about changing our transporation system. This is about helping people vicitmized by it.

Wow, are you guys missing the point.

operator

No offense, it's easy to crticize someones transportation choices sitting in the comfort of our home in financial security. I can easily imagine myself to be that other person, I don't agree with the way they've played this story but then again, what news article wouldn't.

dee-vee

"The program, funded with federal transportation dollars"

Where can I check off the box to not fund anything like this? I swear America is one giant socialist cesspool but no one can admit it.

Dahon.Steve

I don't believe she is struggling. An hour on a bus to work is not bad. I wish my commute was that short. Almost of my co-workers who live 15 to 30 miles outside of the city have the same commuting time. I repeat, she is not struggling. It's all in her mind. She's brain washed into believing this unaffordable lifestyle is the correct way of living. It's a mistake.

I do believe she is a victim. She's a victim of a society that states you must own a car at all cost even if it breaks you. Applying for loans on her limited income WILL force her to struggle as those loans will need to be paid with interest. It doesn't bother her that transportation costs eat up 20-40 percent of her limited income. She's a victim of her own ignorance.

If she could not save for a rainy day before, what makes you think she's going to be able to save tomorrow? What's going to happen when her car breaks down again and she needs another loan? What's going to happen if she loses her job??

I truly believe the car is making her poor. If she didn't have to pay for costly repairs and all the other associated costs, other options like community college and training become all of a sudden affordable. With this additional education, she would be able to demand a higher salary instead of working in a low paying job.

During my last days as a motorist, I could not pay for repairs and was truly broke. When you can't pay for auto repairs, you're practically destitude. A late model car is a sink hole of money and Mrs. Cromwell found out what took me years to discover.

steveknight

been there dun it and I have the shirt. I spent more time on the bus right here in portland too for years. still even now that I am self employed and before I started commuting by bike I was one the bus about 2 hours a day. I have ridden the bus for 17 years and it did not kill me.
she had a car and now without one she is lost and feels insecure. poor thing addicted to a car (G)
Hell I rode 30 miles today and 4 of that was hauling a trailer loaded with 127 pounds of lumber. cars make people into dependant unhealty lazy fools.

alanbikehouston

I guess that because you are against "socialism", you are also offended by the Federal government giving lawyers $100,000 for each new heavy truck or SUV they bought last year. The rules have been changed so that next year, a lawyer will be given only $25,000 for each SUV he buys. Has "Uncle Sugar" mailed YOU $25,000 lately?

And, there was an article in the paper today about a federal program that has paid companies such as IBM and GM two billion dollars to do research.

People get outraged when they hear about any two-bit effort to help poor folks. Yet, those same folks seldom seem upset about federal "gifts" to millionaires and billionaires. For example, the federal program to help families buy a home by deducting the cost of mortgage interest was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to Enron's CEO Ken Lay (who had mortages on four or five homes with a total value of over twenty million dollars). That same deduction is worth a few hundred bucks to a young school teacher or nurse, struggling to buy a "starter" home.

So, let's eliminate ALL federal aid to the poor. One day after eliminating all federal aid to corporations and millionaires.

77Univega

-- The time I used to spend waiting for and riding buses was used for... OK America, here is the "R" word...
I spent that time R E A D I N G.

steveknight

yes I sure miss the reading time I had riding the bus. hard to read and cycle at the same time (G)

kb0tnv

I totally agree. I think they forgot that on the train or bus you don't have to drive. You can listen to audio books or read a book...That is where you gain some time back! Now those that don't have a car are considered the weird ones. The ones who need help! I live in St. Louis and our family has only one car. I ride my bike whenever I can or my wife can drive me to work if she needs the car. We are already considered weird just with having one car. I donated the second car in '03 because I new that because my wife lost her job it takes exactly one wage earner per car. Even though that car was paid for maintenance, taxes, gas, insurance all cost $...

my .02

kb0tnv

KrisPistofferson

I don't see this as "empowering" in the least bit, and it's reflective of our culture's automobile obsession. After horses were domesticated, many cultures, such as the Mongols and various Native American tribes, considered a man without a horse "half a man", as their culture was built around the horse and the mobility it gave them. This is exactly how we are with automobiles. With the exception of larger metropolitan areas, you may as well have a tattoo on your head that says "POVERTY" if you decide to go carless. I think it's safe to say that below a certain income level, a car is a lead weight hindering your ability to better yourself. The ONLY exception are those who make their living with their cars or trucks. I think federal dollars paying for this is ridiculous, and I'm not against public assistance, but this is akin to giving TV's and VCR's to the poor. I'm all for federal dollars going towards education, shoot, I've had plenty of grants and loans for school, but this is pouring money down a hole, plain and simple. I've technically been "poor" my entire adult life, but it hardly ever occurs to me because I don't FEEL or ACT "poor". Poor will never be convenient, no matter how many luxuries we throw it's way. I'm against rich people using loopholes and accepting federal dollars, too, by the way. I just like to see "welfare" empower people to get where they want to go, and ironically enough, it ain't by buying poor cats cars!

Dahon.Steve

I don't think anyone on this forum was for Ken Lay or tax deductions for the rich. However, this progam to subsidize poor people so they can afford to get themselves in even more debt was wrong. If the program was to enable her to attend a community college and improve her skills, I'd be all for it. Motorized transport helps those who are skilled or have professional degrees. It does not help the poor but keeps them right on the edge.

skydive69

If the liberals had their way, she wouldn't have to work. They would simply support her.

Dahon.Steve

Exactly.

The last thing a family of four making 34k a year needs is a new car with monthly payments.

What is that certain level?

When I was in college making 15K a year, I could not afford a car. Many of my friends ended up dropping out because they purchased a new vehicle and it absorbed all their savings. As a result, I graduated college with no student loans and paid for school in cash.

The problem with an automobile is that you can't save any money if you're making less than 40K or 50K a year. If you're paying over $1,000.00 or more in rent, the car and your other bills eat up the rest and you're left with nothing. Try to buy a new car at 25K a year and you're practically living on the edge. Even at 35K year, a new car loan and full coverage will mean pratically no savings. Maybe if you buy a used car and live in flop house, you might be able to save but you're transportation cost will still eat a significant chunk of your income.

I feel that if you're motorized transportation is costing you ever dime and you're not able to save for retirement, you really can't afford it.

Bekologist

There are two really good books out about the disenfranchisment of the American working class "Nickel and Dimed: On not getting by in America" by Barbara Einreich (sp?) and "The Betrayal of Work" by an author who I can't remember.

Both books touched on what a crippling factor on employment not having a car was. They're not talking about people making $35,000 a year (jeesh, that's poor?), there are people making 5-6 dollars an hour in this country. Having a beater car allows them the mobility to find a marginally better job and perhaps, escape the cycle of poverty. New car loans to the truly poor? probably a bad idea. Help with private transportation? probably a good idea. Sustainable wage jobs close enough to affordable housing to allow bike commuting or public transit? even better.

Both books are excellent reads about poverty and the working class, I recommend them.

Roughstuff

That is hitting one of the many hot buttons right on the head. As usual, people who have cars at their disposal (whether they use them or not), and already have jobs (whether they pay alot or not) hyperventilate about how others shouldn't be given these opportunities.

And yes...most of these posts are missing the point. The debate is between (1) putting more money into mass transit (subsidizing bus routes, bus tokens etc) or (2) putting that money into helping the poor buy a car. Neither of these alternatives is particularly attractive but that is what the debate is about just now.

Under these circumstances (2) is a far superior alternative.

Reliance on mass transit puts the poor at the mercy of public employee union hacks who run the systems, with all their unreliability and poor quality. It restricts the poor to job opportunities along, or near, the routes which the systems take. It forces riders into a hub-and-spoke transit system when many jobs involve going from one suburb to another. It locks them into the favorite urban fantasy of a 'viable downtown area' when the best opportunities have been in the suburbs for decades.

In contrast, with an automobile you can travel when and where you want on a schedule determined by you, not some Ralph Cramden wannabe. And yes, of course...you might get stuck in traffic and have to wait a while...Now the choice becomes..wait on a bus, or wait in a car?

Of course the best alternative would be (3) to eliminate the vast majority (not all) of mass transit subsidies ENTIRELY, since they vary rarely, if ever, generate the savings in highway construction costs everyone claims they do.

roughstuff

genec

Yeah!!!

No more stupid Hummers being bought by the likes of Gloria's Nail Salon...

Sheesh!

Darn things clog the roads here... and I have yet to see one scratched or dirty from going off road.

Roughstuff

I would just modify one thing you say here. I like the idea of outright cash grants to help the poor buy used cars; lets just make sure they aren't clunkers that are polluters or generate all kinds of repair expenses.

You might ask..why not take taxis from one location to another? Well, in most urban areas the number of taxis is restricted by law and, therefore, they are (1) more expensive, (2) lower quality vehicles and (3) more miserable service than they would be in a free market. Deregulating the local transit market would be a huge step forward for the unemployed and working poor.

roughstuff

Daily Commute

It is smart to look at alternatives to conventional mass transit. My area is looking at spending half a billion dollars (yes, $500,000,000) to put in a light rail system. You could buy 100,000 $5,000 cars for that money (or 500,000 $1,000 bikes). Yes, you'd still have to pay upkeep, but you wouldn't have to pay all the money it takes to maintain a working rail system.

Maybe the Portland woman in the article is a bad example--if it's only an hour each way, she's not suffering. But I don't begrudge creative thinking.

dobber

Man you people need to look up from the handlebars once in awhile. Just because others don't subscribe to the cyclists manifesto doesn't make them any better or worse.

I'm sure all of you have lived below the poverty line at one point, or lived in rural areas with few jobs and great distances between points, so you speak from experience.

Climb down from the saddles.