e17a3fb6   
   XPost: alt.autos.toyota, rec.autos.driving, alt.society.liberalism   
   XPost: alt.fan.michael-moore   
   From: demi@moore.net   
      
   On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 15:56:12 -0800 (PST), Jeff    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Feb 12, 6:37 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)   
   >wrote:   
   >> In article ,   
   >> Gary L. Burnore   wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >Lastly, his initial statement is patently false.  Other countries   
   >> >think we're fools for NOT using more public transportation.   
   >>   
   >> Well, we're right and they're wrong.   
   >> --   
   >> The problem with socialism is there's always   
   >> someone with less ability and more need.   
   >   
   >Please explain why they're wrong, and we're   
   > right. Start with NYC, and explain how the people would be better off   
   >if more people had cars and drove more miles.   
      
   It's an impossible question now.  The problem is not the concept of   
   mass transit, the problem is how you pay for it.  NYC and similar   
   large cities can only sustain their "mass transit" lifestyle by   
   collecting taxes from people who don't use mass transit and giving   
   that money to the people who do use mass transit.  That's a political   
   decision and it shaped how mass transit cities grew and evolved.  If   
   cities want to turn into NYC they can do what NYC did and force   
   socialism on themselves.  But there is nothing that says a city HAS to   
   adopt that model.  It gets adopted because that's how the people with   
   lots of money make even more - mass transit, paid for by OTHER people,   
   makes their land more valuable.  So if you let the rich have their way   
   they will keep the city growing in population as long as they can by   
   such means as mass transit.  There are of course, other models besides   
   the mass transit model.  Cities could choose to stop the excessive   
   growth but since the people with money don't make money by keeping a   
   city free from socialism that's not as likely to happen.  With all the   
   vacant land in the US there is certainly no compelling reason for   
   every city to try and grow and grow and grow till it reaches the point   
   of un-sustainability.  But again, that kind of model isn't what the   
   big money boys want nor is it much fun for the "planning   
   professionals" we see their job as cramming as many people as possible   
   into as little space as possible.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)