Mass transit means massive taxes

May 22nd, 2006

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel features an editorial today that purports to be about mass transit, generic viagra illness but is really more of an exercise in massive stupidity.

They are supposed to be arguing that Milwaukee needs more mass transit.

And yet, order they spend most of the editorial pointing out how the current mass transit system can’t pay for itself and needs more subsidies.

What is absolutely amazing to me is that they don’t see the irony in that.

I haven’t seen ANY proof that Milwaukee would benefit from a new fixed mass transit system.

And the people advocating one don’t seem to think they need any arguments stronger than “because” to convince us we need to agree to perpetually finance a system that:

  • We don’t need.
  • We don’t want.
  • That won’t pay for itself.
  • And will have to be subsidized by the everyone whether they use it or not.

A new mass transit system in Milwaukee is an idea that should never leave the station.

Entry Filed under: Milwaukee

5 Comments Add your own

  • 1. daver  |  May 22nd, 2006 at 10:02 am

    Just thought I’d point out to you that we subsidize the automobile at a rate amazingly more than any other form of transit. And It clearly does not come close to paying for itself. Example: 200+ million to fix the Marquette interchange ALONE.

  • 2. The Asian Badger  |  May 22nd, 2006 at 10:24 am

    Stupidity and the MJS Editorial Board have long been synonymous. Especially since Pimental was added.

  • 3. Administrator  |  May 22nd, 2006 at 10:25 am

    You would seriously contend that road building does not pay for itself?

    I would suspect that the portion of the economy sustained by the trucking of goods and materials alone would pay for the building of roads many times over.

    Is some road building wasteful? Hell, yes!

    But you’re talking about the transportation service that allows 90% of us to go almost anywhere we want anytime we want.

    Compared to almost every other dollar I send to the government (and I send a great many), I get the most value from the dollar that goes back into making it possible for me to drive my car when, where, and how I want.

  • 4. daver  |  June 9th, 2006 at 11:39 am

    It’s clearly needed for trucking/shipping and so on. But the automobile itself does not pay for itself, beyond the massive amounts we pay for roads lets not forget we also subsidise the oil companies as well, and parking garages (noted 25 mil TID).

    So when you say “And yet, they spend most of the editorial pointing out how the current mass transit system can‚Äôt pay for itself and needs more subsidies” I’m pointing out that transit based on the automobile doesn’t pay for itself and is subsidies anda huge rate compare to mass transit.

  • 5. daver  |  June 9th, 2006 at 11:40 am

    that should read “at a huge rate compared to mass transit.”

Leave a Comment

Required

Required, hidden

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


About

Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta