 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / August 2005We Needed A Big Gas Tax
Read the following article. Makes you wonder why our government didn't really tax the hell out of fuel during the 90's and use the proceeds to lower other taxes or to fund quality programs. --- At nearly $3 a gallon, gasoline prices have become a nightmare for many Michigan consumers in recent days. But not everyone is ready to start boycotting gas stations. In fact, some residents are far less concerned about the current levels than people who experienced problems such as gas rationing that arose following the oil shocks of the 1970s. "Higher gas prices don't affect me in terms of what I do or where I go," said Curtis Foreman, owner of Foreman Construction LLC in Oak Park. The 34-year-old Foreman, who spends several hours a day on the road for work, has a Ford F-150 and a Ford F-250 Turbo Diesel he uses for work that he fills up regularly. But gas isn't something he worries about too much. And he's not alone. Experts agree that the U.S. economy is far less susceptible to energy shocks, particularly sharp increases in crude oil prices, than it was two decades ago. The advent of fuel economy standards that promote more efficient vehicles that get better gas mileage has helped to temper energy consumption. Even though retail gasoline prices give a lot of people sticker shock, the impact of higher fuel costs is less than it was for a growing number of households and businesses. "I don't even know what gas costs now," Foreman said Friday. "I just paid $75 to fill up one of my trucks, but I don't remember what it cost a gallon. For me, it's the cost of doing business." For the record, regular gasoline is averaging $2.72 a gallon, while diesel fuel costs $2.65 a gallon throughout the state, AAA Michigan reports. The new reality has some economists questioning some old assumptions about the nation's economy. "The basic theme is that the U.S. economy is less sensitive to energy costs than 20 or 30 years ago. We're not independent of energy. We're just less sensitive," said John Silvia, chief economist of Wachovia Securities in Charlotte, N.C. "Why hasn't consumption fallen off? When the price of energy goes up, it does cut into household budgets, but it's less of a cut than 20 years ago, given that incomes have almost tripled since the 1982." For example, American consumers spent a total of about $95 billion for gasoline and other petroleum products in 1984. Last year, that figure jumped to $230.4 billion, or 142% higher. But workers saw their income shoot up 196% from $2.26 trillion to $6.69 trillion last year, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. "Looking over the last 20 years it's clear that incomes have grown faster than the price of energy," said Jay Wortley, senior economist with Michigan's Senate Fiscal Agency in Lansing. "But that's not to say that this recent run-up isn't painful." To be sure, many Michigan workers and consumers whose incomes have not kept up with rising energy prices are feeling the pain. The Michigan manufacturing sector, particularly autos, has caught the brunt of higher petroleum prices. The state's unemployment rate of 7% is one of the highest in the country. Higher petroleum costs also have helped push some auto suppliers into bankruptcy and limited hiring in some delivery businesses. And with global uncertainty pumping fear into the markets, price volatility remains a key part of Michigan's energy equation. In fact, crude oil jumped $2.08 to settle at $65.35 per 42-gallon barrel Friday after a week of declines, following a refinery fire in Venezuela and an oil protest in Ecuador. Nevertheless, some Michiganders, while expressing some frustration about pump prices, don't seem as outraged as one might expect if there were a shortage of oil and gasoline. Michelle Marrs, who recently pumped in $61 of premium gasoline at $2.98 a gallon to fill up her 2003 Land Rover at a Meijer station at 8 Mile and Haggerty in Novi, seemed pragmatic about rising fuel prices. The Ann Arbor attorney is on the road constantly. But given that she's part of a successful law firm, gas prices aren't as high on her list of priorities as they might be for others. "I travel a lot for work, so it almost doesn't matter for me," she said. "Now, I'd be happier if it was $2.20 or something, but what are you going to do?" --- Patrick '93 Cobra > Read the following article. Makes you wonder why our government didn't > really tax the hell out of fuel during the 90's and use the proceeds to > lower other taxes or to fund quality programs. It's because of the way politics works in the USA and the motivations of people. Environmentalism in the USA ceased to be about the environment a long time ago. It's like any other faction in US politics. It's about forcing everyone else to live the way a particular faction says so. If the government just taxed the crap out of fuel and lowered the income tax, then big cars, performance cars, etc would still be avialable limitlessly from the automakers. Groups would complain that taxing consumption was unfair to the poor as well. With CAFE, the traditional large american passenger car was nearly eliminated. They wanted to control what people could buy. It backfired when people started buying inclosed trucks now known as SUVs. CAFE controls what is available for people to buy. So If you could afford to fuel a land barge with $6/gal fuel because of taxes, then you'd get one. Under CAFE, even with $2/gal fuel you couldn't buy one because the automakers couldn't take the penalities for building it. (yes, yes I know a few vehicles where the buyer just pays the gas guzzler tax, but this is only for very expensive cars with low volume production, not say a full size station wagon or something) Sorry Patrick, but the last thing we need to do is give the government one more way to yank money from our wallets. They have more ways to do it than we can count right now. They need to REDUCE the taxes they currently have on gas. Gas tax hurts the people that can least afford it the most. The government collects plenty of taxes. They don't need more money, they need to make do with less. > Read the following article. Makes you wonder why our government didn't > really tax the hell out of fuel during the 90's and use the proceeds to [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > Patrick > '93 Cobra >Sorry Patrick, but the last thing we need to do is give the government >one more way to yank money from our wallets. They have more ways to do >it than we can count right now. They need to REDUCE the taxes they >currently have on gas. Gas tax hurts the people that can least afford >it the most. The government collects plenty of taxes. They don't need >more money, they need to make do with less. This is a yes & no proposition. While it does in fact hurt those who can least afford it (minimum wage burger flippers in an area of no mass transit). Those whom it doesn't affect would go freakin hog crazy and stick their noses so far into the damn trough there would be nothing left. Already many who need fuel to conduct business (farmers & others) do not have to pay the taxes on fuel needed to produce certain things in our economy. Of course the Military which sucks up a tremendous amount of fuel and the US Postal Service (Number one consumer of fuel) already don't pay taxes either. Even though the prices of crude do have an impact there is also the issue of the capacity to turn raw crude into fuels. There hasn't been a new refinery built in the US in about 30 years while the demand curve has steadily increased. Certain taxes on fuel are supposed to go to pay for the infrastructure to support the use of vehicles, i.e. roads & bridges. Unfortunately in many states these taxes go directly into the states general funds and never do get spent on improving the roads if the roads in my area are any indicator. Yes driving a high-performance vehicle to & from work is a royal blast. However, it simply isn't required. The major problem is no viable mass transit alternative for the majority of the country to get anywhere. I can drive the 18 miles to work in 30/40 minutes. If I was to take the bus it would be more like 2.5 hours in each direction and I still have to get to the bus stop. The answer is out there somewhere, but I doubt that anyone in the US government is going to come up with it. >> Read the following article. Makes you wonder why our government didn't >> really tax the hell out of fuel during the 90's and use the proceeds to [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] >> Patrick >> '93 Cobra -- Please Don't Steal - The Government Hates Competition ZombyWoof (take the dogs when replying via e-mail) >>Sorry Patrick, but the last thing we need to do is give the government >>one more way to yank money from our wallets. They have more ways to do [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > The answer is out there somewhere, but I doubt that anyone in the US > government is going to come up with it. Here's a link that gives current gasoline tax rates: http://tinyurl.com/exjpg New York is probably the worst case as they charge over 50 cents a gallon in total state and federal taxes. For EVERY 18 gallon fill-up the driver in New York pays about nine dollars in taxes. At $2.50/gallon that equates to a tax rate of 20%. When gas was $1.75/gallon the tax rate was near 29%. How long do you think it will take the states and the federal governments to get the tax rate, as a percentage, back up to what they were before this last price spike happened? My guess is it won't be long. If the government wants to reduce our consumption of fuel then they should just ration gasoline and be done with it. That way we won't have them digging in our wallets so deep. Personally, I think fuel should be taxed just like any other commodity. Just apply the state's sales tax rate. Fuel tax is just another way government has found to increase revenue covertly. I don't believe these amounts per gallon tax rates are shown on the pumps. Why do you think that is so? Also, why are they included in the advertised price? If the tax was added on to the purchase like sales tax the public would be forced to know they are getting raped on gas taxes and probably wouldn't stand for it. The reason I am so passionate about lowering taxes, or at least keeping them stagnant, is that we are taxed at incredible rates when all the local, state and federal taxes are combined. Individually they don't seem so bad but add them up and most of us would be shocked. The thing is that many of these taxes are not based on income so the poor are hit disproportionately hard. Hell, state governments even pray on people through lotteries. Many of the people I see buying those tickets haven't got the income to justify such an extravagant purchase. Do you think the government cares that they are praying on the poor by offering lottery tickets? Granted, no one is forced to by a lottery ticket but I expect more from our elected leaders than to shamelessly take money from people that can't afford it. One day people will put all this together and the politicians will be held accountable at the ballot box. It is happening gradually right now. Why do you think the Republicans have retained the House, Senate and more often than not the Presidency? The biggest reason is they are the only party that is willing to cut taxes. Even they aren't doing it enough to suit most people. It is happening here where I live at the local level. People can't understand why there property taxes are sky rocketing when inflation isn't. The expenses of the local government aren't increasing 20% a year so why are their local taxes. The average person is starting to see what is being done to them from a tax standpoint. It may take a few more election cycles but I believe there will be a major shift in the public's attitude toward how they are taxed. Well, I feel better after that rant. :) > >>Sorry Patrick, but the last thing we need to do is give the government > >>one more way to yank money from our wallets. They have more ways to do > >>it than we can count right now. > >>They need to REDUCE the taxes they currently have on gas. Right, then the American consumer is so darn happy with the cheap gas he responds by doing what? Well, of course, he consumes more gas which in turn drives the price, and the profits of oil-rich countries (many of which we are spending huge amounts/$Bs of dollars wagging war on or trying to control.), back up. Plus, cheap gas keeps anyone from investing in alternative fuel sources. It's a nice little cycle. And that's the main reason the oil-rich countries walk a tight-rope on prices -- high enough to make good money, but not too high to cause investment in alternatives. > >>Gas tax hurts the people that can least afford it the most. Only if the government doesn't "redistribute" those dollars in the forms of compensation -- reduction of other taxes. > >> The government collects plenty of taxes. They don't need more money, they > >> need to make do with less. Agreed. > > Even though the prices of crude do have an impact there is also the > > issue of the capacity to turn raw crude into fuels. There hasn't been > > a new refinery built in the US in about 30 years while the demand > > curve has steadily increased. That's an issue, but the bottom line is demand is growing faster than they can pump it out of the ground. > > Certain taxes on fuel are supposed to go to pay for the infrastructure > > to support the use of vehicles, i.e. roads & bridges. Unfortunately > > in many states these taxes go directly into the states general funds > > and never do get spent on improving the roads if the roads in my area > > are any indicator. The problem is we have more roads/bridges than we can take care of. A road that was a single lane ten years ago, is now probably two lanes, at least. And a two-lane road is twice as expensive to resurface. > > Yes driving a high-performance vehicle to & from work is a royal > > blast. However, it simply isn't required. The major problem is no > > viable mass transit alternative for the majority of the country to get > > anywhere. I can drive the 18 miles to work in 30/40 minutes. If I > > was to take the bus it would be more like 2.5 hours in each direction > > and I still have to get to the bus stop. There is no fix to that one. Human nature is we all want our space. And space now often means living 10+ miles from work. > > The answer is out there somewhere, but I doubt that anyone in the US > > government is going to come up with it. It's higher fuel prices by way of higher gas taxes. Think about this. If you had to pay say... an extra $1K per year for fuel, but received other tax cuts to make up the difference what would your response be? Of course, you'd find ways to cut your gas consumption, and a brainy neighbor or company would search for cheaper alternatives to oil. > If the government wants to reduce our consumption of fuel then they > should just ration gasoline and be done with it. That way we won't have > them digging in our wallets so deep. Personally, I think fuel should be > taxed just like any other commodity. Just apply the state's sales tax > rate. Drop gas prices that far and you'd breed fleets of Hummer-sized vehicles. > Fuel tax is just another way government has found to increase > revenue covertly. I don't believe these amounts per gallon tax rates > are shown on the pumps. Why do you think that is so? Also, why are > they included in the advertised price? If the tax was added on to the > purchase like sales tax the public would be forced to know they are > getting raped on gas taxes and probably wouldn't stand for it. Exactly, and then the consumer would respond to the new lower prices by doing the above. > The reason I am so passionate about lowering taxes, or at least keeping > them stagnant, is that we are taxed at incredible rates when all the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > expect more from our elected leaders than to shamelessly take money from > people that can't afford it. Aren't they required to print the odds of winning on every ticket? If folks can't do simple math, or use simple logic, they deserve their money to be pissed away. But let's face the facts, most want a "simple" way to fortune. > One day people will put all this together and the politicians will be > held accountable at the ballot box. It is happening gradually right > now. Why do you think the Republicans have retained the House, Senate > and more often than not the Presidency? They have big business and the religous right in their back pocket? Money + religion is tough to beat/defeat. Just ask Bin Laden. > The biggest reason is they are the only party that is willing to cut taxes. They're not cutting sh*t. They're building debt. Yeah, they give you a little tax break here and there, but they're paying for it with a check they don't have the funds for. > Even they aren't doing it enough to suit most people. It is happening here > where I live at the local level. People can't understand why there property [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > standpoint. It may take a few more election cycles but I believe there > will be a major shift in the public's attitude toward how they are taxed. Oh, it's coming. But unfortunately the debt will still need to be paid. > Well, I feel better after that rant. :) Me too. Patrick '93 Cobra >>>>Sorry Patrick, but the last thing we need to do is give the government >>>>one more way to yank money from our wallets. They have more ways to do [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > of which we are spending huge amounts/$Bs of dollars wagging war on or > trying to control.), back up. I want the market to set the price of gas, not the government. If that means it is $3.00/gallon or $1.00/gallon then so be it. Capitalism works best when the laws of supply and demand are applied. If the government want to get us away from oil then they could develop new technologies for alternative energy sources and give it away to companies willing to bring it to market. Don't inflate gasoline prices to the point I have to ride a moped to get around. I'm not even going to get into how unfair it would be to lower income people. > Plus, cheap gas keeps anyone from investing in alternative fuel > sources. It's a nice little cycle. And that's the main reason the > oil-rich countries walk a tight-rope on prices -- high enough to make > good money, but not too high to cause investment in alternatives. I guess the free market system is working if they know they can't totally rape us on oil prices. IMO, we will stop using oil only when the clear majority of the people in the country want to use alternative energy sources. Whether that results from economic, political and/or environmental reasons is anyone's guess. >>>>Gas tax hurts the people that can least afford it the most. > > Only if the government doesn't "redistribute" those dollars in the > forms of compensation -- reduction of other taxes. Income redistribution doesn't really solve anything. People on the lower end of the economic ladder need to be given opportunities, not endless handouts that make them dependent, IMHO, of course. Plus, I don't trust the government to "redistribute" anything, whether it be money or cheese. >>>>The government collects plenty of taxes. They don't need more money, they > >> need to make do with less. > > Agreed. I knew there had to be something we agreed on. ;) >>>Even though the prices of crude do have an impact there is also the >>>issue of the capacity to turn raw crude into fuels. There hasn't been [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > money to be pissed away. But let's face the facts, most want a > "simple" way to fortune. If they do print the odds on the tickets I would wager the print is so small you need a microscope to read it. It is true that many people are just looking for the easy fortune. This is why we will always have a segment of the population that is poor. They just don't want to work, period. This is why I have a problem with just handing out government assistance without requiring results. There are a small group of people that will make a career from playing the system. It isn't fair to the taxpayer, or the people that truly need assistance, to let these people be leaches. This is why, IMO, things like income redistribution doesn't work. It entices people to become dependent instead of self sufficient. Let's face it there are many, many people who would be happy to take a government handout over gainful employment. As the old saying goes, "Whatever you subsidize your create more of it". >>One day people will put all this together and the politicians will be >>held accountable at the ballot box. It is happening gradually right [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > They have big business and the religous right in their back pocket? > Money + religion is tough to beat/defeat. Just ask Bin Laden. Respectfully, this is where you are dead wrong. I vote Republican and in no way fit the stereotype you just stated. I am self employed and haven't been to church in years. The reason I vote Republican is because for me there is no better alternative that stands a snowball's chance in hell of winning an election. I don't care about any of the religious issues. I do care greatly about conservative economic issues. I am actually more Libertarian that anything. I just know that voting Libertarian in today's world is a waste of my vote. One other thing I know is that should liberals get their agenda enacted they will run this country off a cliff economically and from a national security standpoint. Bush didn't get 60+ million votes because all the church's got the vote out and all the corporate CEO's voted. He got them because a vast majority of people are tired of having issues like gay marriage, gun control, tax increases, etc. rammed down their throats. The majority of the people in this country hold conservative leaning views when it comes to taxes, gay marriage, gun control, government intrusion in everyday lives to name a few. Bush's votes were not from a legion of red-state rednecks. They were from a broad cross section of the country. He made percentage gains in all ethnic and gender groups from the 2000 election. No political talking head gave him a chance if Kerry got more than 54 million votes. The point being is that what many think is a traditional Republican vote just doesn't fit anymore. After the 2004 election it should be clear that Republicans positions are more mainstream than anyone thought possible. >>The biggest reason is they are the only party that is willing to cut taxes. > > They're not cutting sh*t. They're building debt. Yeah, they give you a > little tax break here and there, but they're paying for it with a check > they don't have the funds for. IMO, we basically have two choices. First is to lower taxes and run a higher debt (BTW, our debt relative to GDP is better than any other developed country) and the second is to have us taxed excessively and still run up the deficit. Of these two, I'll take the first. If you expect Congress to control their spending then you're delusional. At least lower taxes will fuel economic growth which in turn increases tax revenues. All excessive taxing will do is stagnate economic grow and reduce tax revenue which will result in a perpetual downward spiral. >>Even they aren't doing it enough to suit most people. It is happening here >>where I live at the local level. People can't understand why there property [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Oh, it's coming. But unfortunately the debt will still need to be > paid. Not really. It will need to be "serviced". It will never be paid off. >>Well, I feel better after that rant. :) > > Me too. Feels good, huh? > Patrick > '93 Cobra > >>>>They need to REDUCE the taxes they currently have on gas. > > Right, then the American consumer is so darn happy with the cheap gas > > he responds by doing what? Well, of course, he consumes more gas which > > in turn drives the price, and the profits of oil-rich countries (many > > of which we are spending huge amounts/$Bs of dollars wagging war on or > > trying to control.), back up. > I want the market to set the price of gas, not the government. If that > means it is $3.00/gallon or $1.00/gallon then so be it. Capitalism [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to the point I have to ride a moped to get around. I'm not even going > to get into how unfair it would be to lower income people. The problem with letting the market set the price on oil is that nothing will happen until oil wells starting sucking air. Then there'll be a power grab (read major wars between the Middle East, China, US, Russia, etc.) to control the remaining reserves) and a scramble to *try* to come up with alternatives.... but by then it'll be too late and most of those who survive the war will be left sitting in the dark and walking. I say get the investment going NOW! Gas is already taxed, I say let them tax it more to give companies incentives to start searching for viable alternatives. And THEN, to compensate everyone (the rich included) for the higher price of gas, the government gives us other breaks on other taxes. > > Plus, cheap gas keeps anyone from investing in alternative fuel > > sources. It's a nice little cycle. And that's the main reason the > > oil-rich countries walk a tight-rope on prices -- high enough to make > > good money, but not too high to cause investment in alternatives. > I guess the free market system is working if they know they can't > totally rape us on oil prices. IMO, we will stop using oil only when > the clear majority of the people in the country want to use alternative > energy sources. Whether that results from economic, political and/or > environmental reasons is anyone's guess. See above. It'll end up being a big ugly war. A war that no one will win because all will be lost. > >>>>Gas tax hurts the people that can least afford it the most. > > Only if the government doesn't "redistribute" those dollars in the > > forms of compensation -- reduction of other taxes. > Income redistribution doesn't really solve anything. People on the > lower end of the economic ladder need to be given opportunities, not > endless handouts that make them dependent, IMHO, of course. Plus, I > don't trust the government to "redistribute" anything, whether it be > money or cheese. Mike, I'm not talking about only compensating the poor or the middle class or whoever. I'm saying compensating *everyone* with some form(s) of tax breaks for the increase in gas taxes. > >>The reason I am so passionate about lowering taxes, or at least keeping > >>them stagnant, is that we are taxed at incredible rates when all the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >>expect more from our elected leaders than to shamelessly take money from > >>people that can't afford it. > > Aren't they required to print the odds of winning on every ticket? If > > folks can't do simple math, or use simple logic, they deserve their > > money to be pissed away. But let's face the facts, most want a > > "simple" way to fortune. > If they do print the odds on the tickets I would wager the print is so > small you need a microscope to read it. It is true that many people are > just looking for the easy fortune. This is why we will always have a > segment of the population that is poor. Agreed. > They just don't want to work, period. Agreed, again. > This is why I have a problem with just handing out government assistance > without requiring results. There are a small group of people that will make > a career from playing the system. It isn't fair to the taxpayer, or the > people that truly need assistance, to let these people be leaches. This is > why, IMO, things like income redistribution doesn't work. It entices people > to become dependent instead of self sufficient. And agreed again. But I'm not talking about gas taxing everyone and giving the proceeds to the poor or lazy. I'm talking about giving *everyone* other tax breaks for the added tax on fuel. > Let's face it there are many, many people who would be happy to take a > government handout over gainful employment. As the old saying goes, > "Whatever you subsidize your create more of it". And I'd be subsidzing the search for viable alternative fuel sources. > >>One day people will put all this together and the politicians will be > >>held accountable at the ballot box. It is happening gradually right > >>now. Why do you think the Republicans have retained the House, Senate > >>and more often than not the Presidency? > > They have big business and the religous right in their back pocket? > > Money + religion is tough to beat/defeat. Just ask Bin Laden. > Respectfully, this is where you are dead wrong. I vote Republican and > in no way fit the stereotype you just stated. Currently the Republican *base* is being driven by big business and the religous right. Others, like yourself, have joined the ranks because the Democrats currently have no message and no messenger. > I am self employed and > haven't been to church in years. The reason I vote Republican is > because for me there is no better alternative that stands a snowball's > chance in hell of winning an election. Mike, elections have become popularity contests. I don't buy for a minute that the Republicans have a lock on anything. All it takes is the "right candidate" and good PR/spin team around him/her to build an image and anyone could win tomorrow. It's just that right now Rove and company are the best PR/spin team around. > I don't care about any of the religious issues. I do care greatly about > conservative economic issues. The Bush team is anything but conservative on economics. In fact he's been getting drilled by conservative groups for his spending. > I am actually more Libertarian that anything. I just know that voting > Libertarian in today's world is a waste of my vote. One other thing I > know is that should liberals get their agenda enacted they will run this > country off a cliff economically and from a national security standpoint. Why is liberal considered a bad word? Because in my dictionary, liberal sounds pretty darn good. > Bush didn't get 60+ million votes because all the church's got the vote > out and all the corporate CEO's voted. He won because of what's going on in the Middle East. The folks on the fence didn't want to see a whole new team try to formulate a whole new game to win. They figured they didn't want to throw a monkey wrench in things... that it was better to let the current team see if they can finish/fix what they started. > He got them because a vast > majority of people are tired of having issues like gay marriage, gun > control, tax increases, etc. rammed down their throats. Personally, I think Clinton did a pretty darn good job with the economy. Taxes weren't out of control. He was fiscally responsible/conservative and had us running in the black. Bush on the other hand has us bleeding red ink, and it appears, for a long time to come. Gay marrige is hotter subject now than it has ever been. And as far as gun control, I don't think it's a big thing if someone has to wait 24 hours to be checked out for a criminal record/mental health issue before buying an AK-47, do you? But some seem to think doing that background check is the begining of a slippery slope to banning shotguns for quail hunting. > The majority of > the people in this country hold conservative leaning views when it comes > to taxes, gay marriage, gun control, government intrusion in everyday > lives to name a few. See above. For the record, I'm not a proponent of gay marriage, but I see a problem with listing "gay marriage" and "intrusion in everyday lives" together. > Bush's votes were not from a legion of red-state rednecks. They were from a > broad cross section of the country. He made percentage gains in all ethnic > and gender groups from the 2000 election. > No political talking head gave him a chance if Kerry got more than 54 > million votes. The point being is that what many think is a traditional > Republican vote just doesn't fit anymore. After the 2004 election it > should be clear that Republicans positions are more mainstream than > anyone thought possible. Bottom line: He's a war time president yet he barely won. Rove and company shouldn't get smug. > >>The biggest reason is they are the only party that is willing to cut taxes. > > They're not cutting sh*t. They're building debt. Yeah, they give you a > > little tax break here and there, but they're paying for it with a check > > they don't have the funds for. > IMO, we basically have two choices. First is to lower taxes and run a > higher debt (BTW, our debt relative to GDP is better than any other > developed country) and the second is to have us taxed excessively and > still run up the deficit. Of these two, I'll take the first. I'll take the third. Get fiscally conservative and lower taxes. > If you expect Congress to control their spending then you're delusional. WHAT?! You mean all those fiscally conservative Republicans in Congress can't be trusted with our tax dollars? > At least lower taxes will fuel economic growth which in turn increases tax > revenues. All excessive taxing will do is stagnate economic grow and > reduce tax revenue which will result in a perpetual downward spiral. Mike, you've taken the ball and ran it out of the stadium. I'm only saying to further tax gasoline to stimulate investment in alternative fuel sources... and that's all I'm saying. > >>Even they aren't doing it enough to suit most people. It is happening here > >>where I live at the local level. People can't understand why there [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >>believe there will be a major shift in the public's attitude toward how > >>they are taxed. > > Oh, it's coming. But unfortunately the debt will still need to be > > paid. > Not really. It will need to be "serviced". It will never be paid off. You're right, not at this rate. > >>Well, I feel better after that rant. :) > > Me too. > Feels good, huh? Yes, it does. Thanks for the conversation! Patrick '93 Cobra >>>>>>They need to REDUCE the taxes they currently have on gas. > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > already taxed, I say let them tax it more to give companies incentives > to start searching for viable alternatives. I remember 30 years ago when the environmentalists said we would run out of oil by now. Environmentalists have cried wolf so many times that no one can believe them anymore. They have a habit of trying to scare us into enacting their agenda. The oil supply is not going to dry up like turning off a water faucet. It will more likely be a slow process that will take decades to occur and it might not happen for 100 years if technology keeps improving the yields from existing oil fields and the ability to locate new ones. Now if for some reason OPEC would turn off the tap as a political statement then you bet your a.s there would be a war. It wouldn't be just us fighting it. The Europeans, Japanese, Chinese among others would probably be right there with us even if they only cut it off on us. If our economy tanks so does theirs. Technology and/or high oil prices will eventually move us to alternative energy sources. IMO, the move is inevitable. Whether it happens in 20 years or 50 years makes little difference in the big picture. I just don't think it will happen in an abrupt manor but in a process that will take 10-20 years or longer. > And THEN, to compensate everyone (the rich included) for the higher > price of gas, the government gives us other breaks on other taxes. Having government artificially raise the price of oil based energy sources is a slippery slope I just don't want to go down. If the government was trustworthy and capable then I might think otherwise but they have done nothing to instill this kind of confidence in me. ><big snip> > > Currently the Republican *base* is being driven by big business and the > religous right. Others, like yourself, have joined the ranks because > the Democrats currently have no message and no messenger. I don't see the religious right wielding that much clout in the Republican party. Look at all the popular pro-choice Republicans the spoke at the last convention. They have shifted toward the middle, IMO, instead of moving to the far right. I believe this is why Bush got 60+ million votes in the last election. The Democratic party has been taken over by the far left for the last 5-6 years. Right now I doubt a Democrat that is a true center leaning candidate can win the primaries and become their nominee. The Dems have left the center wide open for the Republicans and they are rushing to the center to grab as many voters as they can. >>I am self employed and >>haven't been to church in years. The reason I vote Republican is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > image and anyone could win tomorrow. It's just that right now Rove and > company are the best PR/spin team around. I agree to a point but this last election wasn't a popularity contest. In fact, it was one of the most issue based elections I have seen since the election of Ronald Regan in 1980. The Democrats know the majority of the public doesn't want a tax and spend government which leaves them with a big gaping hole in their platform. My problem with the Republicans is they want a "don't tax and still spend anyway" government. While I don't like either position I see the Republicans as the lesser of two evils. >>I don't care about any of the religious issues. I do care greatly about >>conservative economic issues. > > The Bush team is anything but conservative on economics. In fact he's > been getting drilled by conservative groups for his spending. I agree 100%. >> I am actually more Libertarian that anything. I just know that voting >>Libertarian in today's world is a waste of my vote. One other thing I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Why is liberal considered a bad word? Because in my dictionary, > liberal sounds pretty darn good. Historically speaking, being a liberal is fine. The trouble is that the "liberals" of today are promoting a socialist agenda. They will never admit it but it is why they have no ideas. If they told us their real agenda they would be DOA politically. They (with major help from Ronald Regan) have made the term an undesirable label, politically speaking. I find the dynamics of liberal politics and the old school media quite intriguing. The press (i.e. CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC etc.) has delivered the Democratic party into the hands of the far left. Right now a centrist Democrat can't even get noticed by the press or the Democratic party. Hillary is trying so hard to color her liberal roots and look like a centrist because she knows she can't win running as a liberal. She might just pull it off too. It is a clear sign that in today's world "liberal" is a bad word. >>Bush didn't get 60+ million votes because all the church's got the vote >>out and all the corporate CEO's voted. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > things... that it was better to let the current team see if they can > finish/fix what they started. Switching presidents in a time of war helped him but, IMO, was a small component in his re-election. I don't think most people had much confidence in Kerry's abilities regarding national security. Hell, he couldn't even articulate a position on the war that would stay the same for more than a day. Looking like a hawk on national security issues is a big stretch for a true-blue liberal. IMO, Bush won because he successfully convinced a majority of voters that Kerry was a classic liberal and at this time the country doesn't want a liberal president. Since the liberals can't tell us their real agenda they were stuck with just complaining about what Bush had done the last four years while proposing no decent alternatives. The Dems can't rely on the press for promotion that is effective like they could in the past several decades. Both sides can be heard now. Also, I believe the Swift Boat Vets were devastating to Kerry. The fact he didn't directly address them made them even more effective. My brother is a Vietnam vet and voted Democrat most of his life. He HATED Kerry and voted for Bush as did the overwhelming majority of his Army buddies. If this is what happened nationally, it had to cost Kerry millions of votes. I still think there were things in Kerry's military records that were devastating to him. If nothing was there why in the world wouldn't he have released them and defused the whole Swift Boat movement? >>He got them because a vast >>majority of people are tired of having issues like gay marriage, gun [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > that background check is the begining of a slippery slope to banning > shotguns for quail hunting. My biggest problem with him was ignoring the growing terrorist threat. Especially after the first World Trade Center bombing. That was our real wake-up call, not 9-11. They wanted to topple that building then and if they had succeeded the death tole would have made 9-11's look mild in comparison. Also, lets be real about him being fiscally conservative. He and Hillary was hell bent on a liberal agenda until the 1994 Congressional elections when Newt and company took over Congress. Remember nationalized health care? I rest my case. That election scared the sh.t out of him and he knew that to survive the next election he had to run, not walk, the the center. If it wasn't for Ross Perot he would have never been elected in 1992 as he got just 43% of the vote. With this and the country turning more conservative he switched into survival mode. It was the Contract with America that promoted lower budget deficits and economic growth more than anything Clinton did. Here's a link to it: http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html I only wish Congress would follow it today. He just jumped on the band wagon so he could ride the to the next election with a fighting chance. Plus, let's not forget when all the corporate scandals were in high gear. It wasn't under Bush's terms, it was Clinton's. What about that stock market dot com bubble? The stock market free fall didn't occur on Bush's watch. it was Clinton's. Also, who set up the conditions for the growth of the 1990's to occur? It was George Bush Sr. IMO, Clinton has been given a lot of credit for nothing. They way they left office really summed up he and Hillary's whole existence in the White House. Bill was busy granting pardons for favors and Hillary was packing up everything that wasn't nailed down. >>The majority of >>the people in this country hold conservative leaning views when it comes [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > see a problem with listing "gay marriage" and "intrusion in everyday > lives" together. Just because they are in the same sentence doesn't mean they are mutually exclusive or unjustified as a concern of the voters. Gays can get everything they need legally from civil unions which I fully support. If they want to make a religious statement then I'm sure they can find a church to marry them in the eyes of God. >>Bush's votes were not from a legion of red-state rednecks. They were from a > broad cross section of the country. He made percentage gains in all ethnic >>and gender groups from the 2000 election. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Bottom line: He's a war time president yet he barely won. Rove and > company shouldn't get smug. It wasn't a Regan style blowout by any means. Never the less he won. IMO, he would have won handily if he hadn't blown the first debate. Also, Kerry got a tremendous boost from all the positive press he received. After this election it is obvious that the old school press is extremely biased toward the Democratic party. If the coverage would have been fair it would have cost Kerry 5-10 points, IMO. >>>>The biggest reason is they are the only party that is willing to cut taxes. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I'll take the third. Get fiscally conservative and lower taxes. Absolutely. >>If you expect Congress to control their spending then you're delusional. > > WHAT?! You mean all those fiscally conservative Republicans in > Congress can't be trusted with our tax dollars? Just a handful of them. Definitely not enough to make a difference. >>At least lower taxes will fuel economic growth which in turn increases tax >>revenues. All excessive taxing will do is stagnate economic grow and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > saying to further tax gasoline to stimulate investment in alternative > fuel sources... and that's all I'm saying. I am getting pretty far from the topic at hand. >>>>Even they aren't doing it enough to suit most people. It is happening here >>>>where I live at the local level. People can't understand why there [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Thanks for the conversation! Same here. > Patrick > '93 Cobra >> >>>>They need to REDUCE the taxes they currently have on gas. > [quoted text clipped - 170 lines] > that background check is the begining of a slippery slope to banning > shotguns for quail hunting. You really need a little more information on this subject. The second amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting or shotguns. Waiting periods are NOT about background checks. That has been covered since 1998 by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Or in the case of individuals who carry concealed weapons permits from one or multiple states, they have already passed one or more stringent background check. How many is enough? Should you have to retake your drivers exam once a month? After all many more Americans die from automobiles than guns. Does your "no big thing" attitude apply to a person who already has one or more guns? What practical difference does that person waiting to buy their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th gun make? If you really wanted to do something about criminals with guns, you would stop supporting the harassment of honest law abiding Americans, and go after the criminals. If a criminal wants a gun they will get it with or without these silly little feel good infringements, and they do because they know there are no serious ramifications if they get caught with a gun. Law abiding Americans have an inalienable right to firearms, without a bunch of thinly veiled excuses for infringing on that right. Pro Second Amendment Americans are a huge block of voters. >> The majority of >> the people in this country hold conservative leaning views when it comes [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > Patrick > '93 Cobra > If a criminal wants a gun they will get it with or without these silly > little feel good infringements, and they do because they know there are no > serious ramifications if they get caught with a gun. Furthermore, the penalities for having the illegal gun will always be less than the crimes these criminals intend to use the gun for. So the penalty will not deter them by definition because they are CRIMINALS. > > And as > > far as gun control, I don't think it's a big thing if someone has to > > wait 24 hours to be checked out for a criminal record/mental health > > issue before buying an AK-47, do you? But some seem to think doing > > that background check is the begining of a slippery slope to banning > > shotguns for quail hunting. > You really need a little more information on this subject. > The second amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting or shotguns. It's the right to bear arms. Or, basically, if you want to own a gun, any gun, you're free to do so. > Waiting periods are NOT about background checks. That has been covered > since 1998 by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Educate me. What's the waiting period for? And why is it a hassle? > Or in the case of individuals who carry concealed weapons permits from one > or multiple states, they have already passed one or more stringent > background check. Good. > How many is enough? I just don't want the guy who has had some "stress incidents" at work and was seeing a doctor for maybe talking about suicide or suggesting a little revenge on someone who pissed him off; or the guy who just got out of jail for armed robbery and was "just trying to get his life back in order" being able to walk into any gun show, or worse a Wally World, and *freely* buy a weapon. That scares me. Yeah, they could steal one or buy one from a "dealer", but at least they obtained it illegally... we didn't just give him a sales receipt and say have a nice day, thanks for shopping at WalMart. > Should you have to retake your drivers exam once a month? We have "exams"?! I only remember having to start the car, put it in drive, turn the wheel a little, hit the brake once or twice and then a driver's license spit out. But what a novel idea! I'd suggest a real road course with curves, cones, water, heavy acceleration, braking and turning. Followed by a written test about the rules of the road -- blinker use, tailgating, obstructing the left/passing lane and lane discipline in general, paying attention to traffic signals (not running them, or be talking on a cell phone and stopped, after it has changed to green 5-10 seconds ago) and requiring every licensed driver pass both exams about every 3-4 years. > After all many more Americans die from automobiles than guns. I'm just glad the average American isn't in the [immediate] possession of gun as often as they drive a car. > Does your "no big thing" attitude apply to a person who already has one or > more guns? Why not? Just like I wouldn't have a problem waiting 24 hours or doing a background check before buying a car. > What practical difference does that person waiting to buy their 2nd, 3rd, or > 4th gun make? Ask the folks who survived Columbine, CO. More weapons can mean more carnage. Seen the video floating around with the high school kid packing about 9-10 guns under everyday baggy clothing? > If you really wanted to do something about criminals with guns, you would > stop supporting the harassment of honest law abiding Americans, and go after > the criminals. We already go after criminals... the cops do a great job... they get them locked up. Unfortunately, the punishments don't fit the crimes. > If a criminal wants a gun they will get it with or without these silly > little feel good infringements, and they do because they know there are no > serious ramifications if they get caught with a gun. Do you lock your doors at night? Do lock your car doors when you leave it in a parking lot? Do you try to keep your house looking lived in while you're gone out of town? Sure you do. But why do you do these "little feel good infringements"? Because it's something... and it helps, if even just a little. > Law abiding Americans have an inalienable right to firearms, I totally agree! You should be able to own an armory, as long as you don't have a history of pointing guns at people or have serious mental problems. Patrick '93 Cobra >> > And as >> > far as gun control, I don't think it's a big thing if someone has to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Educate me. What's the waiting period for? And why is it a hassle? THERE IS NO WAITING PERIOD!!! There is NICS, the I is for Instant. When there was one, or in the misguided states that may still have one, it is simply a thinly veiled attempt by the anti-gunners to further infringe our second amendment rights. In Washington state prior to all this anti-gun waiting period, Instant Background Check crap, if you had a concealed weapons permit (remember the EXTENSIVE Background Check) you could walk into any gun store lay your cash and permit on the counter take you handgun or long gun and permit and be on your way. That is the way it should be for law abiding citizens. >> Or in the case of individuals who carry concealed weapons permits from >> one [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > we didn't just give him a sales receipt and say have a nice day, thanks > for shopping at WalMart. You position is not logical, what if there were no record of his sudden loss of his faculties? The exact thing you think these thinly veiled infringements of our second amendment are supposed to protect you from could still happen, these misguided and ineffective laws would do nothing to stop this guy complete with "stress incidents" from legally buying his gun. THE GUN IS NOT THE PROBLEM, neither are the law abiding citizens. >> Should you have to retake your drivers exam once a month? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to green 5-10 seconds ago) and requiring every licensed driver pass > both exams about every 3-4 years. The truth is, the anti-gunners want registration and licensing not for safety, but to erect the record-keeping apparatus necessary to make confiscation of privately owned firearms achievable in the future. >> After all many more Americans die from automobiles than guns. > > I'm just glad the average American isn't in the [immediate] possession > of gun as often as they drive a car. There are over 100,000,000 gun owners in the US. are you sure you know what you are saying? The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) estimates that there were about 215 million guns in 1999, when the number of new guns was averaging about 4.5 million (about 2%) annually. A report for the National Academy of Sciences put the 1999 figure at 258 million. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 30.7 million approved (new and used) NICS firearm transactions between 2000 2003. See BATF, "Firearms Commerce in the United States 2001/2002" (www.atf.gov/pub/index.htm#Firearms). >> Does your "no big thing" attitude apply to a person who already has one >> or >> more guns? > > Why not? Because it is a misguided, and ineffective wasteful (man hours and money) thinly veiled infringement of our second amendment. Just like I wouldn't have a problem waiting 24 hours or doing > a background check before buying a car. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > carnage. Seen the video floating around with the high school kid > packing about 9-10 guns under everyday baggy clothing? Ask them WHAT? How many totally misguided, and ineffective anti-gun laws were broken (hint, more than 20) while these criminals were getting the guns they carried during that crime? Again, What practical difference does that person waiting to buy their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th gun make? Can you honestly say you think it makes a practical difference? >> If you really wanted to do something about criminals with guns, you would >> stop supporting the harassment of honest law abiding Americans, and go [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > We already go after criminals... the cops do a great job... they get > them locked up. Unfortunately, the punishments don't fit the crimes. My point exactly! The feel good laws are totally misguided, and ineffective! They should be going after criminal activities, NOT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS! >> If a criminal wants a gun they will get it with or without these silly >> little feel good infringements, and they do because they know there are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "little feel good infringements"? Because it's something... and it > helps, if even just a little. You obviously DO NOT HAVE A CLUE what the hell you are talking about. No I DO NOT Lock my doors at night, or when I go out (leave my property), unless it is for overnight. I don't lock my vehicles at home either. I do not try to keep my house looking lived in while I'm gone out of town. In order to determine whether our home looks lived in or not you would have to be trespassing, you would have had to navigate my closed locked (automatic) gate traveled my 1200 foot driveway and navigate another closed gate, then crossed my 1.5 acre fenced dog yard to see my house which is only visible from my property, or over 1 mile away. I carry a loaded sidearm. That is as feel good as I need it. >> Law abiding Americans have an inalienable right to firearms, > > I totally agree! You should be able to own an armory, as long as you > don't have a history of pointing guns at people or have serious mental > problems. No you do not totally agree, You believe many obstacles and fees are OK, I DO NOT!!! You see nothing wrong with limitless harassment of law abiding Americans and gun owners. I see that as a violation of my inalienable second amendment rights. > Patrick > '93 Cobra > >> > And as > >> > far as gun control, I don't think it's a big thing if someone has to > >> > wait 24 hours to be checked out for a criminal record/mental health > >> > issue before buying an AK-47, do you? But some seem to think doing > >> > that background check is the begining of a slippery slope to banning > >> > shotguns for quail hunting. > >> You really need a little more information on this subject. > >> The second amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting or > >> shotguns. > > It's the right to bear arms. Or, basically, if you want to own a gun, > > any gun, you're free to do so. > >> Waiting periods are NOT about background checks. That has been covered > >> since 1998 by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System > >> (NICS). > > Educate me. What's the waiting period for? And why is it a hassle? > THERE IS NO WAITING PERIOD!!! There is NICS, the I is for Instant. > When there was one, or in the misguided states that may still have one, it > is simply a thinly veiled attempt by the anti-gunners to further infringe > our second amendment rights. > In Washington state prior to all this anti-gun waiting period, Instant > Background Check crap, if you had a concealed weapons permit (remember the > EXTENSIVE Background Check) you could walk into any gun store lay your cash > and permit on the counter take you handgun or long gun and permit and be on > your way. > That is the way it should be for law abiding citizens. Right, for "law abiding" citizens. After an instant background check to make sure you don't have a rap sheet that includes assault with a weapon or a history of serious mental health problems, you should be able to pay your money and take your new gun. > >> Or in the case of individuals who carry concealed weapons permits from > >> one or multiple states, they have already passed one or more stringent > >> background check. > > Good. > >> How many is enough? > > I just don't want the guy who has had some "stress incidents" at work > > and was seeing a doctor for maybe talking about suicide or suggesting a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > we didn't just give him a sales receipt and say have a nice day, thanks > > for shopping at WalMart. > You position is not logical, what if there were no record of his sudden loss > of his faculties? What could be done... the same for a person doing his *first time* assault with a deadly weapon crime. But I'm telling you, if a person has a history of gun crimes, or is a psycho, and they mow down a member of my family or a friend with a gun they just walked into Wally world and purchased, I'd be pissed. However, if they illegally obtained the weapon then at least I'd feel the system did all it could to keep the weapon out of their possession. Don't you see the difference? > The exact thing you think these thinly veiled > infringements of our second amendment are supposed to protect you from could > still happen, these misguided and ineffective laws would do nothing to stop > this guy complete with "stress incidents" from legally buying his gun. THE > GUN IS NOT THE PROBLEM, neither are the law abiding citizens. Right, they *could*. No system is perfect. Case in point: Terrorism. You can't stop it. You can only take precautions. However, in both cases not taking some precautions is asinine. > >> Should you have to retake your drivers exam once a month? > > We have "exams"?! I only remember having to start the car, put it in > > drive, turn the wheel a little, hit the brake once or twice and then a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > to green 5-10 seconds ago) and requiring every licensed driver pass > > both exams about every 3-4 years. > The truth is, the anti-gunners want registration and licensing not for > safety, but to erect the record-keeping apparatus necessary to make > confiscation of privately owned firearms achievable in the future. That thinking, IMO, is paranoid. > >> After all many more Americans die from automobiles than guns. > > I'm just glad the average American isn't in the [immediate] possession > > of gun as often as they drive a car. > There are over 100,000,000 gun owners in the US. are you sure you know what > you are saying? Yes, I do. I'm saying *immediate possession*. Most folks aren't packing on their way to, at, and from work. > The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high. The > Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) estimates that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > See BATF, "Firearms Commerce in the United States 2001/2002" > (www.atf.gov/pub/index.htm#Firearms). > >> Does your "no big thing" attitude apply to a person who already has one > >> or more guns? > > Why not? > Because it is a misguided, and ineffective wasteful (man hours and money) > thinly veiled infringement of our second amendment. In this age, the technology is there to make it rather easy. > >> What practical difference does that person waiting to buy their 2nd, 3rd, > >> or 4th gun make? > > Ask the folks who survived Columbine, CO. More weapons can mean more > > carnage. Seen the video floating around with the high school kid > > packing about 9-10 guns under everyday baggy clothing? > Ask them WHAT? How many totally misguided, and ineffective anti-gun laws > were broken (hint, more than 20) while these criminals were getting the guns > they carried during that crime? > Again, What practical difference does that person waiting to buy their 2nd, > 3rd, or 4th gun make? Can you honestly say you think it makes a practical > difference? It would make a difference in a case where someone bought a first weapon, then had an incident/crime with a weapon, and then later wanted to buy another weapon. > >> If you really wanted to do something about criminals with guns, you would > >> stop supporting the harassment of honest law abiding Americans, and go > >> after the criminals. > > We already go after criminals... the cops do a great job... they get > > them locked up. Unfortunately, the punishments don't fit the crimes. > My point exactly! The feel good laws are totally misguided, and > ineffective! They should be going after criminal activities, NOT LAW > ABIDING CITIZENS! To make sure you're not a ex-felon with a weapon history is not going after law abiding citizens. > >> If a criminal wants a gun they will get it with or without these silly > >> little feel good infringements, and they do because they know there are > >> no serious ramifications if they get caught with a gun. > > Do you lock your doors at night? Do lock your car doors when you leave > > it in a parking lot? Do you try to keep your house looking lived in > > while you're gone out of town? Sure you do. But why do you do these > > "little feel good infringements"? Because it's something... and it > > helps, if even just a little. > You obviously DO NOT HAVE A CLUE what the hell you are talking about. > No I DO NOT Lock my doors at night, or when I go out (leave my property), > unless it is for overnight. I don't lock my vehicles at home either. > I do not try to keep my house looking lived in while I'm gone out of town. > In order to determine whether our home looks lived in or not you would have > to be trespassing, you would have had to navigate my closed locked > (automatic) gate traveled my 1200 foot driveway and navigate another closed > gate, then crossed my 1.5 acre fenced dog yard to see my house which is only > visible from my property, or over 1 mile away. > I carry a loaded sidearm. That is as feel good as I need it. Most people don't have the luxury of living in a fortress and most don't walk around packing heat. Most live in urban or suburban neighborhoods with neighbors in close proximity where gates, fenced dog yards and a weapon strapped to you isn't possible or practical. For these folks, locking doors and making their homes look lived in when they're gone is the only viable option. > >> Law abiding Americans have an inalienable right to firearms, > > I totally agree! You should be able to own an armory, as long as you > > don't have a history of pointing guns at people or have serious mental > > problems. > No you do not totally agree, You believe many obstacles and fees are OK, I > DO NOT!!! You see nothing wrong with limitless harassment of law abiding > Americans and gun owners. I see that as a violation of my inalienable > second amendment rights. You're seeing things that are not there. I said nothing of fees, nor did I say limitless harassment. I'm taking about a background check to make sure you're not a criminal or psycho. Patrick '93 Cobra > One day people will put all this together and the politicians will be > held accountable at the ballot box. It is happening gradually right > now. Why do you think the Republicans have retained the House, Senate > and more often than not the Presidency? The biggest reason is they are > the only party that is willing to cut taxes. The problem is that they cut taxes disproportionately in favor of corporations and the wealthiest few, which is exactly the wrong thing to do. Not only do we have a record deficit, but our local taxes are skyrocketing to make up for the federal cuts in state aid. Bottom line is that corporations and the wealthiest few are taxed less and the middle class is taxed more. > People can't understand why there property taxes are sky > rocketing when inflation isn't. The bu$h regime is cutting federal aid to states to help fund obscene tax cuts for the elite and it's war profiteering in Iraq. The tax cuts and corporate welfare handouts have to be covered by increases local taxes. Meanwhile jobs are leaving, wages are stagnant, and health care costs are skyrocketing... http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0416-08.htm http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0407-01.htm http://responsiblewealth.org/ - Ever wonder who benefits from the 150 MILLION U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq? http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21 http://www.commondreams.org/ http://www.truthout.org/ http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/ http://thirdworldtraveler.com/ http://counterpunch.org/ http://responsiblewealth.org/ http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/pol/80315675.html In September and October 2003, McClellan said he had spoken directly with Rove about the matter and that "he was not involved" in leaking Plame's identity to the news media. McClellan said at the time: "The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved," "It was a ridiculous suggestion" and "It's not true." Yet another in the endless stirng of bu$h's lies. "They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of warfare or morality." -bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq. http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr. "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did." -- George W. Bush "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." -- Adolf Hitler "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918) Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron... >>One day people will put all this together and the politicians will be >>held accountable at the ballot box. It is happening gradually right [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > cuts in state aid. Bottom line is that corporations and the wealthiest > few are taxed less and the middle class is taxed more. Hank, did you (or anyone) ever get a paycheck from a poor person? I didn't think so. Do you think all rich people are evil, dishonest, lazy, uncaring, cheating bastards? If you do you're a loon. Do you think the government (at all levels) wastes a huge amount of our tax dollars? If you don't think so then get a clue. Do you think the solution to every problem is to throw money at it by taxing the living sh.t out of the wealthy and everyone making a decent living. If you do then please feel free to donate 80% of YOUR income to the IRS and don't presume you should control my income. The State/municipal governments are using the reduction in federal funding to dishonestly justify increased state taxes. Want to know what happened in my state of Virginia? Let me tell you anyway. They screamed the sky was falling two years ago and our newly elected DEMOCRATIC governor got a substantial tax hike enacted. Now they have a BILLION DOLLAR SURPLUS that they are just itching to spend. Turns out there was no pending economic disaster after all. Now why that is? Turns out the federal tax cuts improved the State's economy much faster than our governor expected, or wanted. Now the debate is whether they should return the excess funds back to the tax payer. You can probably guess what I think they should do. Want to know why the low income people can't get anymore income tax reductions? It's because they don't pay any income tax! You know how the government gets their pound of flesh from them anyway? It's through personal property/property tax increases, gasoline taxes, cigarette/alcohol taxes and lottery tickets to name just a few ways. Over taxing the wealthy will screw our economy in ways you can't imagine. They are the engine that makes capitalism work. If you are for high tax rates on on any one group then all you want for this country is socialism. If there is one thing we have learned without question through our experiences of the 20th century it is that socialist governments don't work. IMO, removing incentives goes against nature and what drives us humans to succeed and advance. If you really want to help the poor get the government off their backs and quit making them dependent on government handouts. Liberals know that keeping the poor dependent and ignorant is their only hope of retaining them as a voting block. I know it is hard for you to read these things but sometimes the truth stings like a MF. >>People can't understand why there property taxes are sky >>rocketing when inflation isn't. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > covered by increases local taxes. Meanwhile jobs are leaving, > wages are stagnant, and health care costs are skyrocketing... You need to get up with current events and educate yourself on the economic conditions of many of the states. They are reaping the rewards from the bu$h regime's tax cuts. They are no where near economic meltdown. You need to get a new mantra because this "jobs are leaving, wages are stagnant" droning just doesn't bite anymore. Fact is the unemployment rate is better than at ANYTIME during the Clinton administration. The economy is booming in case you haven't heard. The wages in my industry (land development, engineering consulting, construction etc.) are up almost 100% in the last 5-7 years. This has happened in many other industries. I'm going to give you a little history lesson in economics. Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s the U.S. transcended to a service based economy. You need to read up on what that means. Basically, the majority of jobs in the country provide services and not manufacturing. It is a natural progression of a growing economy and an improving standard of living. Basically, we can no longer afford our own labor cost. Now people like you think this is a bad thing or that no matter what the cost to the consumer we need to keep mundane manufacturing jobs inside the USA. There are plenty of high paying jobs available to the people (and it really isn't that many people) who had their job transfered to a country with less labor costs. You know what they have to do though? Get off their rear ends and get training to be qualified to fill those positions. In the end they will have a better income with much better job security. The rest of the country's consumers can't, and shouldn't, be required to pay outrageous prices for underwear, blue jeans, computer components, knick knacks, automobiles etc. just so these people can retain their overpaying jobs. If you want to see what job protection causes just look at the stagnant economic growth in Europe and France and Germany, in particular. You need to accept that liberalism is hitting a dead end in this country. Your ideas are basically a sugar coated minor variation of socialism and communism. You and your cronies biggest problem is that you can't tell us what you really stand for because is would finish your group as a political entity. The days when liberals controlled the avenues of information to the masses are over. Now that nearly every person can hear both sides (liberal and conservative) and make their own choices your side has been trying to find ways to keep your real agenda secret. Liberals can't stand that the masses just don't swallow all your propaganda without question like in the past. You and your cronies have no clue how rabid your side looks by having Ted Kennedy, Cindy Sheehan, Micheal Moore, Barbra Streisand, Sean Penn, among others, making complete a.ses of themselves. All this completely ignorant, illogical and impossible babble you rant over in this newsgroup just makes your side look totally incapable of governing this country. As far as I'm concerned I want you and your buddies to keep doing exactly what you have been doing. It is the best way I know to keep you wacked out, far left liberals out of elected government. ><snipped a huge amount of worthless HS> <snip> >One day people will put all this together and the politicians will be >held accountable at the ballot box. It is happening gradually right [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Well, I feel better after that rant. :) Well I've been saying that for years, but it still hasn't happened. The average American has absolutely no idea how much their tax bite really is. Especially when they hide it under the names of user fees, licenses and so forth. I sat down and added it all up once and about sh.t. I retired from the Military ten years ago with a nice "little" monthly stipend for life. It wasn't anywhere near enough to live on or raise a young family so of course second career here I come. Currently I pay my entire monthly Military Retirement Check (funded by taxes) back in payroll taxes every bi-weekly pay period. Sort of like giving Burger King a rebate for working for them every year. It sucks to lose 2 times what I draw annually in retirement benefits funded by taxes back in taxes. -- Please Don't Steal - The Government Hates Competition ZombyWoof (take the dogs when replying via e-mail) > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > licenses and so forth. I sat down and added it all up once and about > sh.t. It is one good, articulate presidential candidate away from happening, IMO. A good old fashioned Ross Perot type pie-chart speech to a nationwide audience would do the trick. Maybe take one of the debates and give each candidate a 1/2 hour uninterupted time block. > I retired from the Military ten years ago with a nice "little" monthly > stipend for life. It wasn't anywhere near enough to live on or raise [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > lose 2 times what I draw annually in retirement benefits funded by > taxes back in taxes. If you want to see how the Bush's tax policies have effected your tax rates check out this link: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/ It graphs Tax Freedom Day for the last 25 years and shows what that day was over the last 100+ years. Look further down the page and see the pie chart that compares federal/state/local taxes to other typical expenses. Taxes took 107 days of income and household and household operations (i.e. mortage, utilities, repairs etc.) only took 65 days of income! On average government takes 65% more money than the average person spends on owning and maintaining a house every year. Plus, I would wager they don't calculate all the user fees and micellaneous hidden taxes in their figures. > If you want to see how the Bush's tax policies have effected your tax > rates check out this link: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/ [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > would wager they don't calculate all the user fees and micellaneous > hidden taxes in their figures. My biggest expense by far is taxes. Nothing else comes close. Even if I start adding stuff together. Taxes are probably about equal to all my other expenses, manditory, optional, and otherwise combined. Government can help people the most by eliminating the dependency class, making sure that everyone pays at least some taxes and pass the savings on to those who actually pay taxes. Of course that will never happen because a dependency class and a class of voters that pay no taxes (of a particular type) are in government's best interest. The group that is dependent will continue to vote for the status quo and those who pay no taxes will continually vote for tax increases on other people. >Already many who need fuel to conduct business (farmers & others) do >not have to pay the taxes on fuel needed to produce certain things in >our economy. Of course the Military which sucks up a tremendous >amount of fuel and the US Postal Service (Number one consumer of fuel) >already don't pay taxes either. How much money would be saved if the postal service eliminated Saturday delivery? In fact, Monday - Wednesday - Friday delivery would probably serve most people what with fax, email and other delivery services already working... -- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere? >>Already many who need fuel to conduct business (farmers & others) do >>not have to pay the taxes on fuel needed to produce certain things in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >would probably serve most people what with fax, email and other >delivery services already working... Us computer literate folks do not yet represent a large enough segment of the population to go that far. However, I do believe Saturday delivery could be sh.t-canned with no adverse affect. I haven't written or received a postal letter in years. Majority of my mail is sh.t-canned on my way into the house with it. The rest is simply bills and an occasional special occasion card. -- Please Don't Steal - The Government Hates Competition ZombyWoof (take the dogs when replying via e-mail) >>How much money would be saved if the postal service eliminated >>Saturday delivery? Let's not eliminate saturday delivery, just eliminate the pounds of crap that I get in the mail that goes directly from the mail box to the trash or recycle. >>>How much money would be saved if the postal service eliminated >>>Saturday delivery? > > Let's not eliminate saturday delivery, just eliminate the pounds of crap > that I get in the mail that goes directly from the mail box to the trash > or recycle. If it weren't for that "crap" stamps would be $2.50 a pop. ;) >>>>How much money would be saved if the postal service eliminated >>>>Saturday delivery? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > If it weren't for that "crap" stamps would be $2.50 a pop. ;) Maybe... but energy would be saved by eliminating it! :) >>>>>How much money would be saved if the postal service eliminated >>>>>Saturday delivery? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Maybe... but energy would be saved by eliminating it! :) But think of all the lost jobs. :o) >>Already many who need fuel to conduct business (farmers & others) do >>not have to pay the taxes on fuel needed to produce certain things in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > would probably serve most people what with fax, email and other > delivery services already working... They have already dropped most Saturday deliveries to businesses if they are closed on the weekends. > >Already many who need fuel to conduct business (farmers & others) do > >not have to pay the taxes on fuel needed to produce certain things in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > would probably serve most people what with fax, email and other > delivery services already working... You know that's a DAMN good idea! Patrick '93 Cobra > Read the following article. Makes you wonder why our government didn't > really tax the hell out of fuel during the 90's and use the proceeds to > lower other taxes or to fund quality programs. Man, you sure picked a prickly topic here! Here is my two cents. I believe in the school of economics that says the basic problem with any government, with soft budget constraints, is that it's fundamentally incapable of the necessary self-regulation and efficiency the free market can provide. Socializing health care can give you good stories, but on the whole, it costs everyone more. And as for the gross shortcomings of the free market, cite Enron, cite WorldCom, fine; I agree that it's all flawed. But nothing is more flawed than an enterprise that can never actually go bankrupt. Nothing can borrow from Peter to pay Paul with more impugnity than a wealthy democratic government. Futhermore, attempting to place too many artificial controls on the free markets in the form of excessive taxes, price supports, price ceilings and other mechanisms such as subsidies does more damage in the long term than good, and creates more inequity than it ever solves. These things creates perverse incentives, and dysfunctional reactions that are counterproductive to the causes in general - and I'm not talking in terms of years, I'm talking in terms of seconds, once the news breaks. Gasoline is a very price-inelastic commodity, like tobacco and illicit drugs. As such, raising its price by 1% will always result in an increase in revenue and profits that is more than 1%. All the government is going to do by taxing the hell out of fuel and energy is to raise more money to fund its inefficiencies, causing more inefficiencies of bloated bureacracy to oversee the inefficiencies it caused, hence costing the consumer again a disproportionately large sum of money for a paternalistic policy, and the original intentions of the legislation are forever lost and twisted by those who come along and figure out how to make money off of it. We most definitely do need an energy policy. It just cannot be solely based on taxing fuel. It sounds good until you dig deeper.  SignatureWound Up ThunderSnake #65 Oh, so no one will argue with my economic theory? Well, I must be a f.cking genius. =) Or, I'm just an overeducated idiot. The jury is still out. Who accumulates 194 semester hours and carries on like I do? Don't bother, all, I'm checking out for an indeterminate length of time. I am not ending this or any other argument by saying this; I'm telling you I may never come back. But I sincerly hope to. Life sometimes becomes very cruel, and for years on end. I'm sure some of you understand. It just won't quit. I must deal with this sh.t. This thread has been a very good discussion. I've read every word of it. All I have to say is, I hope I still HAVE my gas guzzling Mustang when I return (and I know you all will be quietly pining for this event) and I hope some one will talk to me. So, best wishes to Joe, Spike, Jim Warman and WindsorFox (even though I know they both hate me), Patrick, ZW, Kate, ByM, Happy Mikey, and the rest of the regs. Apologies are due to those I've not mentioned. I don't want to be writing this right now at all. Peace to all of you; good luck and skill; be careful. Let the good times roll. Burn rubber and be happy. Sincerely yours, Jason a.k.a. -- Wound Up ThunderSnake #65 > Oh, so no one will argue with my economic theory? Well, I must be a > f.cking genius. =) Or, I'm just an overed |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message