I struggle to think how you see a generic statement about improving public transit and immediately go to “but what about the places where it cant help?”
Well shit Einstein, I suppose this is just referring to places where it does then.
Your comment does nothing to support or contradict the idea we should improve public transport…
Fair, but you add suburban about a third live urban. And realistically, connecting suburbs to a system that is anywhere comparable to cars is also pretty expensive.
Improving public transit does nothing to impact rural area car travel. Saying we need both on a comment how we should improve public transport is replying to something not at task here.
The point is the post seems to minimize improve cars in favor of mass transit. The post didn’t start with we need both, it started with “get rid of cars” as the general sentiment.
Which is a fine sentiment in city centers, but that’s only a piece of things. Incidentally, I think the cities are generally trying to build out that transit.
True, but catering to people who make poor life choices also isn’t sustainable. Living in a rural area and having many kids are both choices. I few people should be able to make those choices, and should also be responsible for paying for them
I don’t think it is, the conservative perspective is that you should have to pay to live, while this guy is just saying that you should have to pay to live the way you want if that way is expensive.
The problem with conservatism is that we are subsidizing people living in the equivalent of downtown penthouses in cost because it’s tradition, instead of the people in the streets.
I don’t think it is, the conservative perspective is that you should have to pay to live
Yes, and as conservatives see it, jobs are available and it’s on you to get one and support yourself and/or your family. If you can’t afford a family, it’s not on the state to subsidize yours.
Such is the conservative answer to addiction/homelessness, healthcare, education and pretty much everything else.
So my take is that there is a difference between saying “if you can’t afford to feed your family, starve”, and “if you can’t afford a lifestyle that’s decidedly much more expensive than that of most people, get a cheaper living”.
TBH in my perfect world, you would get free room and board in high density housing for free without stigma, and you could work to get something better. Does saying “I don’t want to pay to sustain people’s expensive rural lifestyles, I’d rather the money would go to help more people for whom not getting help means starving instead of moving” make me a conservative?
I struggle to think how you see a generic statement about improving public transit and immediately go to “but what about the places where it cant help?”
Well shit Einstein, I suppose this is just referring to places where it does then.
Your comment does nothing to support or contradict the idea we should improve public transport…
It was more about the “we need both” parts.
Though, dismissing the some half of the country that lives in rural areas is kind of why politics is what it is I guess.
Less than 20% of people live in rural areas in the USA.
Fair, but you add suburban about a third live urban. And realistically, connecting suburbs to a system that is anywhere comparable to cars is also pretty expensive.
Improving public transit does nothing to impact rural area car travel. Saying we need both on a comment how we should improve public transport is replying to something not at task here.
Maybe you should look at the post again? I’m agreeing with OP who posted the meme with the note “Both is good” and I agreed.
Are you maybe confused and thinking you’re in a different thread?
The point is the post seems to minimize improve cars in favor of mass transit. The post didn’t start with we need both, it started with “get rid of cars” as the general sentiment.
Which is a fine sentiment in city centers, but that’s only a piece of things. Incidentally, I think the cities are generally trying to build out that transit.
True, but catering to people who make poor life choices also isn’t sustainable. Living in a rural area and having many kids are both choices. I few people should be able to make those choices, and should also be responsible for paying for them
I’m super curious, do you know/realize that’s pretty much the conservative perspective on a bunch of issues (with which I also disagree.)
I don’t think it is, the conservative perspective is that you should have to pay to live, while this guy is just saying that you should have to pay to live the way you want if that way is expensive.
The problem with conservatism is that we are subsidizing people living in the equivalent of downtown penthouses in cost because it’s tradition, instead of the people in the streets.
Yes, and as conservatives see it, jobs are available and it’s on you to get one and support yourself and/or your family. If you can’t afford a family, it’s not on the state to subsidize yours.
Such is the conservative answer to addiction/homelessness, healthcare, education and pretty much everything else.
So my take is that there is a difference between saying “if you can’t afford to feed your family, starve”, and “if you can’t afford a lifestyle that’s decidedly much more expensive than that of most people, get a cheaper living”.
TBH in my perfect world, you would get free room and board in high density housing for free without stigma, and you could work to get something better. Does saying “I don’t want to pay to sustain people’s expensive rural lifestyles, I’d rather the money would go to help more people for whom not getting help means starving instead of moving” make me a conservative?