Originally Posted by
Mobile 155
TP,
you have still not addressed the point and I don’t believe you can. People prefer comfort and personal freedom. They also prefer a good paying job. You and you alone have proposed that success is a bad thing and poverty can be avoided even when people get their pay cut.
Why don't you use the word, "socialism," when you talk about people wanting a good-paying job? You're admitting what I said, that there wouldn't be as many good-paying jobs or as high of pay without transit and infrastructure spending, so you are basically saying that people accept automotive socialism because it generates more/higher-paying jobs than no-socialism or lower-cost socialism.
Having transit as the most common mode of transit, coupled with lower infrastructure costs as a result of less traffic on the roads, would not equal poverty. The value of money is relative to what you can (and have to) buy with it. If you don't have to buy a car and insurance, then you are much better off with less money than if you do.
Let me ask you this: if people had to fund toll-roads and other roads and highways out of pocket instead of their government spending the money for them up front and then taxing/tolling them for it later, how many people do you think would voluntarily front the money?
It is you you and your ideas that are resisting what society has chosen. And you make such proclamations as if how you live is an example for anyone else.
You always demonize and ostracize me in your posts because your arguments would be too weak without putting me down.
The other poster that indicated you are trying to encourage restructuring society into a primitive state is correct. You have been on the people make too much money side since the first post we ever talked about. That was the one where you asked in a poll how many in the forum would live in a poor section of town and live with minimum pay if there were no cars allowed. Or would they want to live with better pay in a better part of town but they had to have access to a car? You and you alone advocated for living in the poor section.
You are connecting two different things that have nothing to do with each other. If costs of living were lowered by less people driving overall, then more people could afford to live outside the poor areas.
The reason I used to advocate for moving to poor areas was to raise the standard of living in those areas, i.e. by more positive people bringing their energy into the area without driving up the prices by spending more.
Nothing has has changed from that conversation and no one is less aware than you are. Remember this is a general forum for the one percent of the population. This part of the forum represents a small percent of that one percent. And it has the highest percentage of people interested in what car fee is or involved in. Yet you are the lone voice or reason? Do you even read your own posts?
Yours are always piles of lies committed by subtly spinning and misinterpreting things I say and have said. Your POV is built on completely shaky foundations, but you assume that as long as you go on repeating it, it will hold up. It doesn't and it won't, but as long you are ignorant of your own ignorance, it will hold up in your own mind; and I'm certain that will be enough for you.