Government social program for low income families regarding automobiles

[Matty]

Cars are a big expense for folks, so what do you think?

[Goldwater]

Nope.

[ElectionsGuy]

Definitely no, but I do think government can assist to help people eventually get cars (through job training and such).

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Definitely no, but I do think government can assist to help people eventually get cars (through job training and such).

[AggregateDemand]

No more non-cash benefits

[Cory]

Free? No. Some kind of means-tested subsidy for insurance and paying for a used car? Yes.

[King]

Cars should be discouraged in general. They're unhealthy.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The last thing we need is more pollution (and congestion for that matter).

The way to help the poor move is public transportation and cheaper Uber-like services.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The money would be better invested in the development of affordable public transportation.

[Simfan34]

The money would be better invested in the development of affordable public transportation.

[Cory]

What about people who live in rural areas?

[AggregateDemand]

What about people who live in rural areas?

Let the public transit crowd listen to the sound of their own echo. They do not wish to be inconvenienced by considering the lives of people who do not live in densely populated areas.

[King]

Rural people need trucks. Trucks are not cars. They do work only individual vehicles can do.

Urban cars are a luxury. Even in the rare case you need one, it's easy and economical to use a rental or taxi for the task.

[Cory]

Rural people need trucks. Trucks are not cars. They do work only individual vehicles can do.

Urban cars are a luxury. Even in the rare case you need one, it's easy and economical to use a rental or taxi for the task.

I was also talking about people who live in small towns. Also, no everyone in rural areas "need trucks".

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Obviously transportation policy needs to take into account the needs of people who live in sparsely-populated or far-flung areas, and obviously most of those people need and will continue to need individual vehicles. To pretend that this somehow means that people who do live in densely-populated areas shouldn't be enabled and encouraged to rely primarily on mass transportation is chimerical.

[traininthedistance]

The money would be better invested in the development of affordable public transportation.

Obviously.

...

What about people who live in rural areas?

Let the public transit crowd listen to the sound of their own echo. They do not wish to be inconvenienced by considering the lives of people who do not live in densely populated areas.

Heavens forfend we inconvenience the exurban crowd by considering the lives of people who do live in densely populated areas.  Or, hell, even so much as acknowledge the concept of externalities.

CrabCake's suggestion of subsidized ride-sharing for those in truly rural areas is a good one.  As for the suburbs, many of them can and should be retrofitted to become transit-friendly, and let ride-share be a bridge to that if necessary.

[DC Al Fine]

No, if we're doing transport subsidies, we should be giving out free bus passes or something.

[Cory]

Obviously transportation policy needs to take into account the needs of people who live in sparsely-populated or far-flung areas, and obviously most of those people need and will continue to need individual vehicles. To pretend that this somehow means that people who do live in densely-populated areas shouldn't be enabled and encouraged to rely primarily on mass transportation is chimerical.

That wasn't what I was saying, for the record. I just thought that the idea that public transportation alone isn't the solution to the this issue which seemed implied by previous posts. It's part of the solution but there are vast swaths of lower-income Americans who will not be helped by it and their needs should also be taken into consideration when dealing with transportation-enabling policy.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Obviously transportation policy needs to take into account the needs of people who live in sparsely-populated or far-flung areas, and obviously most of those people need and will continue to need individual vehicles. To pretend that this somehow means that people who do live in densely-populated areas shouldn't be enabled and encouraged to rely primarily on mass transportation is chimerical.

That wasn't what I was saying, for the record. I just thought that the idea that public transportation alone isn't the solution to the this issue which seemed implied by previous posts. It's part of the solution but there are vast swaths of lower-income Americans who will not be helped by it and their needs should also be taken into consideration when dealing with transportation-enabling policy.

I know, and I agree. The person I thought might be (disingenuously as always) making that claim was AggregateDemand.

[AggregateDemand]

I know, and I agree. The person I thought might be (disingenuously as always) making that claim was AggregateDemand.

I said non-cash benefits are inappropriate. I avoid the tragedy of the plebs altogether by adhering to modern economic virtue of decentralized decision-making.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I know, and I agree. The person I thought might be (disingenuously as always) making that claim was AggregateDemand.

I said non-cash benefits are inappropriate. I avoid the tragedy of the plebs altogether by adhering to modern economic virtue of decentralized decision-making.

That isn't the only thing you said in this thread.

[Person Man]

The money would be better invested in the development of affordable public transportation.

This and perhaps there be ways, if possible, to encourage/subsidize the rural poor to relocate to more developed areas.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The money would be better invested in the development of affordable public transportation.

This and perhaps there be ways, if possible, to encourage/subsidize the rural poor to relocate to more developed areas.

Or we could identify and pursue policies that genuinely help rural areas, instead of encouraging rural communities and cultures to (continue to) self-destruct because rectifying their problems seems too hard. The more I think about the subject matter of this thread the more I come around to the subsidized ride-sharing concept, for example. Comparatively well-settled countryside--as in, northwestern Massachusetts and east-central Iowa rather than northern Maine or western Kansas--could also sure as the sunrise have better bus service than it generally does; trains aren't the only kind of mass transportation available. The unsustainable environment that ought to be crusaded against is, and I think traininthedistance (who's the only real expert on transportation policy I'd say we have here) would agree with me on this, the cul-de-sac, not Rural Route Insert-Number-Here or the holler. Not that this is where suburban development in this country actually originated conceptually, but 'eliminating the distinction between town and country' was one of the ideas where Marx, while well-intentioned, went disastrously wrong.

[New_Conservative]

Nope, sorry.

[MurrayBannerman]

Definitely no, but I do think government can assist to help people eventually get cars (through job training and such).

As a potential beneficiary of this, I would agree with this statement. (I'd get my mom's car after she got a free one)