A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Social Issues
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again (was: ... Live Well w/o a Car ...)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 8th 09, 02:02 AM posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.bicycles.soc,misc.consumers
Jym Dyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 999
Default Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again (was: ... Live Well w/o a Car ...)

= Scott in SoCal
= Rod Speed


Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized
LESS than automobiles are.

Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.


=v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array
of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the
true cost of driving.

=v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one
or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is
going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants
distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much
further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars
(whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too,
is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land
area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of
maintaining it all.

=v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing
3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved,
and guess what? You lose.
_Jym_

Ads
  #2  
Old November 8th 09, 04:07 AM posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.bicycles.soc,misc.consumers
aemeijers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again

Jym Dyer wrote:
= Scott in SoCal

= Rod Speed


Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized
LESS than automobiles are.

Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.


=v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array
of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the
true cost of driving.

=v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one
or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is
going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants
distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much
further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars
(whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too,
is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land
area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of
maintaining it all.

=v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing
3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved,
and guess what? You lose.
_Jym_

Add it up again with door-to-door service, and 'anytime' availability.
Not everyone lives in the imaginary 1920s-1960s urban utopia of 40 foot
wide lot row houses with a bus stop on every other corner. Nor does
everyone go to work or come home the same time, or work the hours the
bus system is running. To provide anything near the level of service a
private vehicle offers, you would need a whole lot more buses and
drivers. And most of them would still be running near-empty most of the
time, at a higher cost per passenger mile than a private car. Buses are
only efficient if they are at least partially full.

Hey, I like public transit. In college, I used it almost every day.
But in a college town, most of the users live in a concentrated area,
and the places they need to go are in a concentrated area. Out in the
real world, the only areas that get near that user/destination density
are the old urban centers. Which happen to be the only areas where mass
transit works. That is why the city here collapsed their bus routes and
schedules- they realized that the buses to the outer regions were
running nearly empty most of the time. Same for the off-hour buses, even
in town. It would be cheaper to give cab fare coupons to the folks that
can't drive for whatever reason. They didn't do that, of course, so
there were some people truly between a rock and a hard place. One guy
wanted to take up the slack with a jitney bus service that regular-use
non-drivers could subscribe to, but the cab companies leaned on the
city, and it never happened.

--
aem sends...
  #3  
Old November 8th 09, 05:45 AM posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.bicycles.soc,misc.consumers
Rod Speed
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,488
Default Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again (was: ... Live Well w/o a Car ...)

Jym Dyer wrote
= Scott in SoCal

= Rod Speed


You've completely mangled the attributions. That should have been

Rod Speed
Scott in SoCal


Transit only *seems* more expensive because
it is subsidized LESS than automobiles are.


Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.


I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque
array of funding serves to keep most of us from
thinking about the true cost of driving.


In fact most countrys dont actually spend all that they collect
in road taxes exclusively on roads and other car infrastructure.

The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging
one or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per
person is going to involve more resources, no matter
how accountants distribute the numbers.


Yes, but thats an entirely separate matter to his pig ignorant claim about SUBSIDYS.

When the individual that chooses to use a car instead of
transit pays for the extra fuel used to move that extra
mass around, that not a subsidy, thats a personal choice.

When point A and point B are so much further
apart because so much land area is devoted to
cars (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking),
that, too, is going to involve more resources.


Yes, but again, thats an entirely separate
matter to what is being discussed, SUBSIDYS.

Paving all that land area? Yep, more resources
all over again, plus the const of maintaining it all.


Paid for by the car taxes, mostly the fuel tax.

And they're paved even for just pedestrians and bike riders anyway,
who mostly dont pay any use tax to use them so THEY are in fact
subsidised by those who choose to use a car instead.

You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing 3-Card Monte,
but eventually there's a bottom line involved, and guess what? You lose.


Nope, I win by having much more flexibility with my movements and
I dont have to put up with the unwashed rabble in my vehicle either.


  #4  
Old November 8th 09, 07:54 AM posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.bicycles.soc,misc.consumers
Les Cargill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again

Jym Dyer wrote:
= Scott in SoCal

= Rod Speed


Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized
LESS than automobiles are.

Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.


=v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array
of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the
true cost of driving.


??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks
very opaque, and people have done multiple studies.

The only thing we really don't know is the true cost
of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it.

=v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one
or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is
going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants
distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much
further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars
(whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too,
is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land
area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of
maintaining it all.


But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never
makes money.

=v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing
3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved,
and guess what? You lose.
_Jym_


--
Les Cargill
  #5  
Old November 8th 09, 05:10 PM posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.bicycles.soc,misc.consumers
krw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:54:14 -0500, Les Cargill
wrote:

Jym Dyer wrote:
= Scott in SoCal
= Rod Speed


Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized
LESS than automobiles are.
Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.


=v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array
of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the
true cost of driving.


??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks
very opaque, and people have done multiple studies.


....and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient source of
income for all sorts of social engineering, like "public" transit.

The only thing we really don't know is the true cost
of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it.


Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics
pushing their collectivist propaganda.

=v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one
or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is
going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants
distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much
further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars
(whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too,
is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land
area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of
maintaining it all.


But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never
makes money.


Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations
own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like
the idea of owning my own home.

=v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing
3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved,
and guess what? You lose.
_Jym_


More collectivist tripe.
  #6  
Old November 8th 09, 07:13 PM posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.bicycles.soc,misc.consumers
Les Cargill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again

krw wrote:
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:54:14 -0500, Les Cargill
wrote:

Jym Dyer wrote:
= Scott in SoCal
= Rod Speed
Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized
LESS than automobiles are.
Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
=v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array
of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the
true cost of driving.

??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks
very opaque, and people have done multiple studies.


...and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient source of
income for all sorts of social engineering, like "public" transit.


Well, I don't particularly have a serious problem with that. If
you can conform to bus schedules and it saves you scarce cash,
I'm willing to subsidize that some.

The only thing we really don't know is the true cost
of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it.


Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics
pushing their collectivist propaganda.


Heh. That certainly doesn't help. Pigovian taxes are well-understood
by The Right People, but look at how looney the debates over
carbon offsets are.

=v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one
or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is
going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants
distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much
further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars
(whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too,
is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land
area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of
maintaining it all.

But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never
makes money.


Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations
own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like
the idea of owning my own home.


Exactly. Although it's probably more frugal to rent, unless you can
really sock in a good down payment.

If real estate regresses to its utility value rather than its
speculative value, that's different. You just don't wanna be the greater
sucker.

=v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing
3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved,
and guess what? You lose.
_Jym_


More collectivist tripe.


--
Les Cargill
  #7  
Old November 8th 09, 07:28 PM posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.bicycles.soc,misc.consumers
krw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:13:13 -0500, Les Cargill
wrote:

krw wrote:
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:54:14 -0500, Les Cargill
wrote:

Jym Dyer wrote:
= Scott in SoCal
= Rod Speed
Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized
LESS than automobiles are.
Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
=v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array
of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the
true cost of driving.

??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks
very opaque, and people have done multiple studies.


...and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient source of
income for all sorts of social engineering, like "public" transit.


Well, I don't particularly have a serious problem with that. If
you can conform to bus schedules and it saves you scarce cash,
I'm willing to subsidize that some.


Why? Shouldn't public transportation's pay its costs? If it's
better, shouldn't this be easy? If it's not, why have it at all.

The only thing we really don't know is the true cost
of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it.


Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics
pushing their collectivist propaganda.


Heh. That certainly doesn't help. Pigovian taxes are well-understood
by The Right People, but look at how looney the debates over
carbon offsets are.


Sure. Like the "health care" debate, the real issue is taxes. A
higher income tax isn't going to work. The states have maxed out
sales and property taxes. The direct taxes are all maxed out. The
only thing left are "hidden" taxes, which is exactly what "health
care" and "cap and tax" are all about. The loony left loves to tax
the productive into the unproductive so they can be controlled.

=v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one
or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is
going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants
distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much
further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars
(whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too,
is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land
area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of
maintaining it all.

But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never
makes money.


Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations
own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like
the idea of owning my own home.


Exactly. Although it's probably more frugal to rent, unless you can
really sock in a good down payment.


Not the point. Do you think everyone can afford rent if *everyone* is
forced to live within the bounds of public transportation. How many
can afford to live in Manhattan? Now double that.

Back to your point. You will never save a "decent" down payment
renting from the only game in town. Even with this recession, a home
is still the way to long-term financial security.

If real estate regresses to its utility value rather than its
speculative value, that's different. You just don't wanna be the greater
sucker.


Sure. That's why I don't speculate with housing. I live in it. The
equity in my house isn't income either.

=v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing
3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved,
and guess what? You lose.
_Jym_


More collectivist tripe.

  #8  
Old November 8th 09, 08:46 PM posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.bicycles.soc,misc.consumers
Les Cargill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again

krw wrote:
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:13:13 -0500, Les Cargill
wrote:

krw wrote:
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:54:14 -0500, Les Cargill
wrote:

Jym Dyer wrote:
= Scott in SoCal
= Rod Speed
Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized
LESS than automobiles are.
Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
=v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array
of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the
true cost of driving.

??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks
very opaque, and people have done multiple studies.
...and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient source of
income for all sorts of social engineering, like "public" transit.

Well, I don't particularly have a serious problem with that. If
you can conform to bus schedules and it saves you scarce cash,
I'm willing to subsidize that some.


Why? Shouldn't public transportation's pay its costs? If it's
better, shouldn't this be easy? If it's not, why have it at all.


Because people simply don't choose to be disabled or poor
enough to need public transport. I'm not willing to write
those people off. Can private efforts replace public
transport? I don't know.

Schumpeterien forces make it harder for the least of us
to compete. That places the burden of care for them
somewhat on the winners. We all reap the benefits of
creative destruction; expecting people to simply cope
doesn't seem realistic.

The only thing we really don't know is the true cost
of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it.
Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics
pushing their collectivist propaganda.

Heh. That certainly doesn't help. Pigovian taxes are well-understood
by The Right People, but look at how looney the debates over
carbon offsets are.


Sure. Like the "health care" debate, the real issue is taxes. A
higher income tax isn't going to work.


It might. Our galloping deficits are going to work less.

The states have maxed out
sales and property taxes. The direct taxes are all maxed out. The
only thing left are "hidden" taxes, which is exactly what "health
care" and "cap and tax" are all about. The loony left loves to tax
the productive into the unproductive so they can be controlled.


Check the CBO figures on what the Bush tax cuts have done to the
deficits. It would be irresponsible to continue them on a linear
projected basis, unless we're prepared to abandon deficit spending
altogether.

Never mind the sheer level of direct, unfiltered subsidy to the
last bunch of "masters of the universe". Free market? Not
even close. Greenspan's mea culpa last year pretty much
ended all that. he'd held that belief apparently since
writing an Objectivist paper in 1963.

Again, the problem with Capitalism is still Capitalists - or
fratboy capitalist wannabees. You can't observe this phenomenon
and still claim the high moral ground.

=v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one
or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is
going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants
distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much
further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars
(whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too,
is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land
area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of
maintaining it all.

But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never
makes money.
Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations
own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like
the idea of owning my own home.

Exactly. Although it's probably more frugal to rent, unless you can
really sock in a good down payment.


Not the point. Do you think everyone can afford rent if *everyone* is
forced to live within the bounds of public transportation. How many
can afford to live in Manhattan? Now double that.


No, not at all. My point still stands - the greatest value of
cars is the ability to shift the balance of power in land rents.

Back to your point. You will never save a "decent" down payment
renting from the only game in town. Even with this recession, a home
is still the way to long-term financial security.


********. That's the fairy story. Do the math yourself - if and
only if you can *actually afford it* - the TCO of ownership is
strictly less than renting - is it more frugal. What people do
is chase the tax break and pretend it's making them money. Well,
the marginal rate is still far less than 100%, no matter what.

This does not mean there are no strategies where home ownership is
more frugal - just that one must prepare for it properly.

Right now, the way prices are plummeting - it's a good
time to transition to owning, assuming you have stable income.
But what most people forget is all the peripheral cost of
ownership.

If real estate regresses to its utility value rather than its
speculative value, that's different. You just don't wanna be the greater
sucker.


Sure. That's why I don't speculate with housing. I live in it. The
equity in my house isn't income either.


but if you're in a market that is dominated *by* speculation,
the only way to win is not to play.

snip

--
Les Cargill
  #9  
Old November 8th 09, 10:27 PM posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.bicycles.soc,misc.consumers
krw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:46:15 -0500, Les Cargill
wrote:

krw wrote:
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:13:13 -0500, Les Cargill
wrote:

krw wrote:
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:54:14 -0500, Les Cargill
wrote:

Jym Dyer wrote:
= Scott in SoCal
= Rod Speed
Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized
LESS than automobiles are.
Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
=v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array
of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the
true cost of driving.

??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks
very opaque, and people have done multiple studies.
...and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient source of
income for all sorts of social engineering, like "public" transit.

Well, I don't particularly have a serious problem with that. If
you can conform to bus schedules and it saves you scarce cash,
I'm willing to subsidize that some.


Why? Shouldn't public transportation's pay its costs? If it's
better, shouldn't this be easy? If it's not, why have it at all.


Because people simply don't choose to be disabled or poor
enough to need public transport. I'm not willing to write
those people off. Can private efforts replace public
transport? I don't know.


So you're going assist people in their own helplessness? ...even
force it? How positively Johnsonian of you.

Schumpeterien forces make it harder for the least of us
to compete. That places the burden of care for them
somewhat on the winners. We all reap the benefits of
creative destruction; expecting people to simply cope
doesn't seem realistic.


Then why not pay the largesse out of general funds rather than highway
funds? Answer: Because it doesn't control the productive enough. The
unproductive are already under control.

The only thing we really don't know is the true cost
of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it.
Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics
pushing their collectivist propaganda.

Heh. That certainly doesn't help. Pigovian taxes are well-understood
by The Right People, but look at how looney the debates over
carbon offsets are.


Sure. Like the "health care" debate, the real issue is taxes. A
higher income tax isn't going to work.


It might. Our galloping deficits are going to work less.


By "work" I meant "fly". Higher taxes will kill the golden goose, no
mater what color you paint them. People know this, but what they
can't see they don't understand. Let me put it another way... Do you
suppose taxes would be as high as they are if you had to fork over a
check for the *total* amount of _all_ taxes every April 15?


The states have maxed out
sales and property taxes. The direct taxes are all maxed out. The
only thing left are "hidden" taxes, which is exactly what "health
care" and "cap and tax" are all about. The loony left loves to tax
the productive into the unproductive so they can be controlled.


Check the CBO figures on what the Bush tax cuts have done to the
deficits. It would be irresponsible to continue them on a linear
projected basis, unless we're prepared to abandon deficit spending
altogether.


Look at the revenue side before you take such broad strokes.

Never mind the sheer level of direct, unfiltered subsidy to the
last bunch of "masters of the universe". Free market? Not
even close. Greenspan's mea culpa last year pretty much
ended all that. he'd held that belief apparently since
writing an Objectivist paper in 1963.

Again, the problem with Capitalism is still Capitalists - or
fratboy capitalist wannabees. You can't observe this phenomenon
and still claim the high moral ground.


No, the problem with capitalism is government.

=v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one
or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is
going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants
distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much
further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars
(whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too,
is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land
area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of
maintaining it all.

But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never
makes money.
Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations
own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like
the idea of owning my own home.

Exactly. Although it's probably more frugal to rent, unless you can
really sock in a good down payment.


Not the point. Do you think everyone can afford rent if *everyone* is
forced to live within the bounds of public transportation. How many
can afford to live in Manhattan? Now double that.


No, not at all. My point still stands - the greatest value of
cars is the ability to shift the balance of power in land rents.


How are "land rents" any different than land ownership? Please
elaborate.

Back to your point. You will never save a "decent" down payment
renting from the only game in town. Even with this recession, a home
is still the way to long-term financial security.


********. That's the fairy story. Do the math yourself - if and
only if you can *actually afford it* - the TCO of ownership is
strictly less than renting - is it more frugal. What people do
is chase the tax break and pretend it's making them money. Well,
the marginal rate is still far less than 100%, no matter what.


If you can't afford a McMansion, buying one isn't smart, no. Buying
if smart if you can afford it, and a 20% down (pick your number) isn't
necessarily the hallmark of "affordability". I bought my first house
with less than 1% down.

This does not mean there are no strategies where home ownership is
more frugal - just that one must prepare for it properly.


Said like someone who believes that leasing a car is a financial
winner.

Right now, the way prices are plummeting - it's a good
time to transition to owning, assuming you have stable income.
But what most people forget is all the peripheral cost of
ownership.


Much of the peripheral costs are voluntary. Maintenance is pretty
small, over the life of a house.

If real estate regresses to its utility value rather than its
speculative value, that's different. You just don't wanna be the greater
sucker.


Sure. That's why I don't speculate with housing. I live in it. The
equity in my house isn't income either.


but if you're in a market that is dominated *by* speculation,
the only way to win is not to play.


The only way to win is to live in a house your entire life. That
isn't done by saving a huge down payment before getting the feet wet.
  #10  
Old November 8th 09, 10:47 PM posted to misc.consumers.frugal-living,rec.bicycles.soc,misc.consumers
aemeijers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again

Les Cargill wrote:
(snip)
Check the CBO figures on what the Bush tax cuts have done to the
deficits. It would be irresponsible to continue them on a linear
projected basis, unless we're prepared to abandon deficit spending
altogether.


Funny, I thought it was the out-of-control spending that led to the
deficits. In the real world, people have to base what they spend on what
they can take in without using a gun. The government ought to try that
sometime. And don't tell me the federal budget can't be cut. I work for
them, and see firsthand how they waste at least one dollar out of three.
Just as a symbolic gesture, POTUS should try staying in DC for awhile,
instead of campaigning for a job he already has. That would save
millions right there. A drop of **** in the ocean, I know, but every
drop helps. If the feds got their collective act together, they could
cut expenses bigtime. Note that I blame congress as much or more than
whoever happens to be in the white house. If the 535 fools on the hill
would grow a brain, a pair, and a spine, they could derail the gravy
train. Maybe their salaries should be based on the deficit- the more in
the hole, the less they take home.

--
aem sends....
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RACQ website poll on yes/no to scrapping the fuel subsidy Peter Australia 0 May 21st 09 12:01 AM
Nonsense Video unifreak7 Unicycling 32 September 1st 06 05:17 PM
More nonsense from MV JP Mountain Biking 1 May 1st 05 06:19 PM
Shoe nonsense William H. O'Hara, III Techniques 12 November 16th 04 05:14 PM
Electric Cycle Subsidy AcKBaR[KAC] UK 24 July 11th 04 06:56 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.