Chuck52
Veteran Member
What I wrote was nothing more than the logical conclusion of what you wrote.
"If we could return our workers to homes closer to their workplaces it would save millions of barrels of oil daily. The way to make cities more desirable to our populance is too political for me to get into on this forum."
- Who is the 'we' who would return our 'workers to homes closer to their workplaces'?
- Who would 'make cities more desirable'?
- Who would define 'more desirable'?
- Who would fund this effort?
Answer: the gummint.
As Dan posted, this is nothing but government sponsored, taxpayer supported social engineering where a socialist bureaucrat has determined the greater good is better served by people moving back to the cities. Whether it's done by taxing people who want to live in the burbs or giving tax credits to people who move into the cities is irrelevant. It's the gummint doing it.
Well heck, Mike. If the gummint is to blame for everything, then the gummint must be to blame for the current model for American life, which seems to be an almost total dependency on individual transportation based on oil. Logical conclusion? Was that social engineering or did it just grow on us like a fungus. I remember reading a scifi short story years ago about an old man remembering the bad old past when the gummint had to decide between following a public transportation model versus individual freedom. In the story the old man was riding a tram with his granddaughter and there was a ruckus outside caused by a fella driving an illegal "jalopy". I think they shot the fella because he was breaking the law by having a private car. I suppose we could have it worse. The gummint might actually be effective, for instance.
Chuck