Welp, this is awkward. I support most of those (disregarding the uncharitable way you spun the descriptions, anyway). I'm interested to hear why you think they're "crap."

• "Let’s make driving harder not mass transit easier" -- The problem with doing it the other way around is that the act of accommodating cars makes transit non-viable, both by (a) sucking up funding in an (ultimately futile) effort to build our way out of congestion by widening roads, and (b) physically forcing trip origins and destinations further apart by shoehorning parking lots in between them, lowering density and therefore the maximum potential transit ridership along a given route. People are going to use the transportation mode they think is best for them (quickest, cheapest, etc.), and to continue bending over backwards accommodating cars is to put a thumb (if not your entire body weight) on that scale.

• "Traffic circles!" -- meh, I'm not going to argue this one 'cause I agree they're overrated. They often perform better than traffic lights in terms of their level of service (LOS) moving cars, but they take up lots more space and aren't necessarily great for cyclists and pedestrians. Besides LOS often isn't the right thing to measure to begin with.

• "Tax on poor people who have to be work at a certain time" -- By this you mean anything that increases the costs of driving, I assume? The problem with that kind of thinking is that it uses a current symptom of the problem as an excuse not to solve the problem. In other words, increasing the costs of driving wouldn't be a problem for poor commuters if, in so doing, we also solved their need to drive to commute.

• "More zoning laws can fix the problems zoning laws created" -- I, for one, argue for straight-up repealing things like minimum parking requirements and restrictions on density. That sort of idea often gets [mis]represented as "abolishing single-family zoning," but in reality it's not about prohibiting property owners from building single-family houses; it's about ending the mandate to build single-family houses and giving them the freedom to build higher-density things instead if they want. Frankly, this common criticism is usually just flat-out backwards.

• "Force upper middle class people to move to areas with poverty" -- I have almost no idea what you're talking about here. However, I suspect that, like the previous bullet point, it's another backwards argument confusing an option for a mandate.