Thor29

Just to make sure that right wing conservative nutjobs don't have a monopoly on stupidity, the liberal dufuses over at www.alternet.org posted the following article, titled "A Car in Every Garage":
https://www.alternet.org/story/27723/

Here is the premise:

To be a fully functioning citizen in this country today, a car is a virtual necessity; so the federal government should subsidize a set of wheels and the commute to work.

Cyclepath

Few people in the US can do without cars & it would beat funding military boondoggles & subsidising antisocial corporations. But the subsidised vehicles should not burn petro.

genericbikedude

eh, the plan would basically rob from the rich and give to the poor. the poor could then use it to buy cars if they wanted. or they could buy bicycles. or they could buy crack and smoke it.

this plan would be great. I would get money.

what we really need to do is have a progressive fuel tax. those who use less pay less.

the program could be entirely voluntary--if you don't sign up, you pay the max rate. if you do sign up, you pay an increasing amount for each gallon you use, topping out at the max rate.

the max rate would be like $7 a gallon, and the revenue raised could go to massive R&D for sustainable energy and transport, as well as obesity programs for fat kids.

Chris L

A fuel tax at a flat rate would work just as well, and be much simpler to administer.

In answer to the original question, yes, I already knew that there were just as many left-wing nutjobs out there as right-wing nutjobs.

abeyance

Subsidies of any kind corrupt the original intention. We need less government, not more.

randya

Go to the article and post a response.

carless

Roger that!

lilHinault

This belongs in politics and religion, since it's not really about the practical nuts and bolts of going carfree, and is very political. And yes, you never know what the redemopublicanocrats will come up with next!

Jerseysbest

Interesting article, another way to spend our tax dollars.

Are there any statistics on when the distance to your job requires a car? 20 miles? 30?

EuroJosh

I say we strip away the current subsidies we give the auto and oil industries. A lot of people would be going car free quickly. The demand for alt transportation would be staggering, the free market would have to respond.

Yes, I'm a (left leaning) Libertarian.

Dahon.Steve

From the article:
>>>>>A century ago, getting to work seldom required a lengthy commute. In rural areas, farmers walked out the kitchen door to their jobs. And most urban residents either lived within walking distance of their places of employment or could rely on convenient public transit systems like streetcars. Today, however, two-thirds of residents in metropolitan areas live in the suburbs, and two-thirds of new jobs are located there as well. It's therefore no surprise that 88 percent of workers drive to their jobs<<<<<

This is nonsense. I live in 2005 and don't have a car. I use trains and public transportation (ie - Streecars) to get to work and no it's not 1905. I made a choice to move to a location that had a streetcar/lightrail at the end of the line. My job is at the start of the line and this did not take rocket science to do! If people want to live in the burbs in the middle of nowhere and pay high fuel and motorcar expense, that's their problem. Millions of Americans like myself are carfree and pay a small fraction of our incomes on transportation. Furthermore, we don't live in slums and have middle or upper middle class lifestyles.

A woman at my office who never owned a car moved to California. I told her she was going to have to purchase a car because public transport was limited. She told me I was crazy because she was never going to drive and was afraid ride the highways. She moved to CA and found a job next to a BART line and moved blocks away from another stop down the line. She's still car free.

The writer makes it seem like the jobs are only in the burbs but recruiters call me EVERY day for better paying jobs. In addition, there are numerous good communities like mine that have rail transport and job opportunities for everyone.

As someone who was living on the edge not too long ago, the last thing a poor person needs is a new car. The insurance, tolls, gas, repairs, maintenance and monthly payments alone will put you over the edge and practically break you.

People today are living paycheck to paycheck and are now finding the high cost of motoring is putting them over the limit. That's too bad because there is no remedy for this problem as the days of inexpensive motoring are coming to an end. If you an want answer to the high cost of transportion, the solution is simple.

1. Sell the car
2. Move closer to your job/Find a new job - Different State
3. Use Public Transporation

Alekhine

Try convincing any of these people of that. The prevailing idea that I keep seeing hinted both here and elsewhere from the pro-car juggernaut is that car-free necessarily equals poor (or at the least, that discarding your auto is convenient only as a way to make life cheaper), and that people adopt the "car-free" or "car-lite" mantra and activism *after* going car-free rather than before: A sort of Aesop's "sour grapes" self-righteousness. Maybe they're right, but I don't see any hard data supporting that assertion.

It's getting amusing these days to see people adopt the idea that one cannot be both well-off and have a conscience about anything.

Dahon.Steve

As someone who cycled extensively in the burbs this summer, there are PLENTY of towns in the middle of nowhere where the people are living quite poorly. In fact, I discovered many areas located in the middle of nowhere where the towns was one big slum.

We are starting to see that now for the first time as people are now moving further and further out leaving behind a slum in the burbs.

swwhite

Would the government also, then, subsidize the $1000 per year (or more) for car repairs, if they are not buying everyone new cars with warranties?

A car, the gift that keeps on giving.

swwhite

And, oh, by the way, after Katrina, there was a picture in Newsweek of an eight-lane freeway out of New Orleans totally plugged with stopped cars, all trying to get out of town. I'm sure that adding a few thousand more would have made traffic move much faster. I bet a person could have evacuated faster on a bike.

Alekhine

I've seen them too. Pretty bizarre America we're creating these days. OTOH, I'm considering more and more the thought of getting out into the boonies myself and still living car-free, so maybe I'm not one to talk, but my work is out of my home, and as long as it doesn't get outsourced, I can live anywhere.

World Tour

Did you all know that GM is responsible for the elimination of the cable cars in CA?

jamesdenver

there's a group here in Denver like that, basically promotes cars guns and god.

https://www.independent.org/

They spent a ton of money opposing our light rail/commuter rail expansion plan last election, but it won by around 70% i think. so at least most people here, cities and burbs, want good transit and understand the benefits of walkable neighborhoods, and are realizing the negative look of walls of closed garage doors

cooker

I made that point in my response to the article.
RGC

Dahon.Steve

And lets not forget insurance and gas because those items are really getting out of control. I was paying $900.00 USD for a car that was 20 years old! I can just imagine how much it would cost to insure a brand new vehicle in New Jersey or any major city.

Anyway. It won't happen because the government is bankrupt due to the wars on oil, oops I mean terror. We are subsidizing the motorcar industry in both money and lives. If this politician wants cheap oil, move to Iraq. Heck, I heard the other day we are subsidizing their fuel so this guy should head there.

Artkansas 

I did already.

AlanK

I'm generally a strong supporter of the free market. While it isn't perfect, in general it encourages efficiency and conservation. This is because the more efficient something is the less expensive it is.

The problem is neither party really promotes true free market economics. The right gives lip service to the approach, but doesn't practice what it preaches: Subsidizing oil companies, and focusing on funding highway projects is contrary to the market approach since mass transit is much more efficient.

In some ways, some members of the left aren't much better b/c they want all amenities like cars to be available to all members of society. 'Can't afford a car? How sad... Well then, the government should pay for you to have one.'

However, it should be mentioned that mass transit construction doesn't call neatly along the left/right dicotomy. For instance, some more conservative cities like Salt Lake City, UT have efficient mass transit (light rail), while very liberal cities like Seattle haven't been able to get it done (even though most residents want it).

humancongereel

when you're to lazy to ride that distance if there's no transit/too stupid to take public transit if it's there.

ViciousCycle

In the Chicago area, there can be some pretty high employee turnover at some suburban employers. This turnover may create new job postings, creating the illusion to the job-seeker that these are employers with lots of job opportunities. I spent years in the burbs as a 'disposable employee' (i.e. a consultant doing the sort of work you'd expect a full-time employee to be doing). Eventually, it just seemed like an unsustainable way to work: spending hours commuting to employers who seem to look at everyone as temps.

bito7

Check out these nutjobs....

https://gop.com/Default.aspx

Play the video retreat & defeat