Didn't make me laugh at all. Actually made me quit angry.

(01-07-2009 06:08 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Was I the only one that knew this was a joke?...Good one Mach!

The only reason why it worked, and that's if it was really a joke, is because it was so believably democrat.

The species stuff and zip code was the joke. I actually belief we should balance the budget on taxing gas. I'm not so sure about diesel. If we taxed gas and not diesel shipping would still be ok.

And my anger is coming back.

(01-07-2009 06:08 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Was I the only one that knew this was a joke?...Good one Mach!

I've known Mach for quite some time. It wasn't a joke until his fellow Libs called him on it. I know Mach; this sentiment was no joke.

(01-07-2009 10:55 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm not so sure about diesel. If we taxed gas and not diesel shipping would still be ok.

A lot of people are buying diesel cars these days so the tax would only affect people with conventional cars - not fair.

Hope your daughter is doing better....

(01-07-2009 03:54 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I always respected Krauthammer. WE NEED TO DO THIS NOW!

Mach, looks like you and I are together on this one and against the rest of the board.

Europe makes their economy work at $8/gallon. We could do it too. There'd be some adjustment, but in the end we'd be better off.

Yes, shipping costs would go up. But EVERYBODY's shipping costs would go up, so prices could be adjusted to pass it through. And companies that found ways to cut fuel consumption would have a bigger competitive advantage. That's really not bad.

(01-07-2009 03:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Charles Krauthammer has an article in this week's Weekly Standard advocating something he calls the "Revenue Neutral Gasoline Tax." Basically the idea is you raise taxes on gasoline, and give each taxpayer a break on some other tax (he uses the social security payroll deduction) to offset. Say the average American uses 14 gallons a week, and you impose a tax of $1/gallon. Then you would reduce everyone's social security tax by $14/week. This would help with the objective of reducing gasoline consumption, while at the same time avoiding a huge negative impact on average and lower income people. You drive less than the average, or use a more fuel-efficient auto, and you actually make money on the deal.

WTF ?????

This is a pure "Political Ponzi Scheme" ...... geeze-ous !!!! Do these people ever digest what they say.

And I think Krauthammer to be a pretty level talking guy .... but on this point, he sorta falls off the barometer into oblivion.

FEDERAL INCOME TAX is ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL as it is and all we can keep coming up with is MORE Forced Theft ?????

And Obama can not say a single solitary thing about Deficits and Debt .... he is going to add another Trillion onto and already bankrupt system and call it a "Stimulus Package" ????

WTF AGAIN ?????

Thank God the world is too end in 2012 !!!!! So my poor Grandchildren and Great Grandchildren will be spared this Pay Off that will toss them into the Orwellian Twilight Zone. (a bit 'Tongue-in-Cheek', but also hopeful the end happens in 2012)

.

(01-07-2009 11:44 PM)Tripster Wrote:  FEDERAL INCOME TAX is ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL as it is and all we can keep coming up with is MORE Forced Theft ?????

Fo Shizzle, did you hack into Trip's account and write this?

(01-07-2009 11:49 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-07-2009 11:44 PM)Tripster Wrote:  FEDERAL INCOME TAX is ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL as it is and all we can keep coming up with is MORE Forced Theft ?????

Fo Shizzle, did you hack into Trip's account and write this?

.

(01-08-2009 12:18 AM)Tripster Wrote:  

(01-07-2009 11:49 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-07-2009 11:44 PM)Tripster Wrote:  FEDERAL INCOME TAX is ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL as it is and all we can keep coming up with is MORE Forced Theft ?????

Fo Shizzle, did you hack into Trip's account and write this?

.

I've suspected for some time Trip is a closet minarchist....whats next...Secessionist?

(01-08-2009 06:46 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Secessionist?

You rang?

Reb, I don't think I'm a liberal. I think I'm a moderate. I an socially liberal (pro-choice, pro-gay rights), but fiscally conservative.

(01-08-2009 09:37 AM)mlb Wrote:  Reb, I don't think I'm a liberal. I think I'm a moderate. I an socially liberal (pro-choice, pro-gay rights), but fiscally conservative.

Being a moderator does not make you a moderate.

Add 50 cents a gallon and balance the budget. Easy McCheezy.

How about balancing the budget by STOPPING SPENDING? I don't know how anyone thinks giving more money to spenders will balance anything.

If you want to entice alternative energy, offer tax credits for development, but define the parameters to preclude gimmicks and those just in it for the credits.

I'm basically a free market guy, but there are places where the current market doesn't reflect all costs. In the case of oil--pollution (with or without global warming), depletion of a limited resource, costs of defending access to supplies, etc.

There are two basic ways to address those externalities--tax the free market price up to reflect them, or regulate the activity. The gasoline tax is an example of the former, CAFE standards are an example of the latter. I prefer the former. Among other things, the European experience would indicate that they work better.

In the case of oil--- also the trillions of dollars we spend militarily to keep the pipes a flowin'


I really think Obama should do this. Some things I would like to add too. I get the spending part. I really do, but we just went through an ERA of PROFOUND irresponsibility. We went from tax and spend to borrow and spend our asses off even more. It was an untenable situation. Cut the spending, I get it. I also get the govt. can be wasteful and the private sector is more efficient. Yet, there are things where the govt. does a necessary task for the good of public without a profit motive. Crime fighting and Fire Fighting come right off the top of my head. Our military just popped up too. That's where we need to bridge our divide. Now, as I live I grow, I've expeienced some things where I'm beginning to understand the other side of the equation. I took a public bus to see a piano player a couple of Saturdays ago. I was on a public bus in Las Vegas ages ago but the public bus in Cleveland Oh, was a different experience. Some people may not want to travel WITH the public. I kinda wished I was a concealed carrier at the time if you get my meaning. I became enlightened to the 2nd ammendment on my journey. I also understand private schooling a little better now. Now my solution to that would be different form the majority of people on here but I admit some experiences I have recently lived has helped me to understand your side of the argument better.

(01-08-2009 12:04 PM)Artifice Wrote:  If you want to entice alternative energy, offer tax credits for development, but define the parameters to preclude gimmicks and those just in it for the credits.

Therein lies the rub.

No matter how you write the regs, as soon as the ink's dry there'll be some scam artist figuring out how to game the system. SUV's came about becuase they could take advantage of a loophole in the CAFE standards. As another example, the subsidies and protective tariffs to support corn ethanol are keeping us from doing the one thing that could have the most immediate impact on reducing our dependence upon foreign oil--importing sugar cane ethanol from Latin America. Yes, we'd still be importing, but at a lower cost (Brasil can produce ethanol for under $1/gallon) and with some prospect for trading off ethanol against oil to keep the price of both down.

That's why the free market works better than regulation--provided you get the stimuli right. You can offer tax credits to develop alternatives--or you can tax the price of oil-based fuels up to the level of alternatives. The latter doesn't require nearly as much interpretation or regulation, nor does it leave as much room for manipulation.