After the obamacare ruling will this be possible?

[PratchettFan]

BTW Reb, your last comment that we are way off topic is wrong. If you go back to the very first post you will find that we are dead on topic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigrebnc truly does not understand adult talk.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Good for you. Now, back to the issue. What is it about exploring alternative methods to fund the upkeep of our national highway system do you not approve of?

Listen bub you're not dictating the questions. Do you understand this? When the government start exploring ways of wasting less money and making cuts we can then and only then discuss ways of creating more taxes on people who can't afford them.

Actually, I am dictating the questions. Whether you want to answer them is up to you. I don't control you but you don't control me either. Do you understand that?

Repairing, let alone maintaining, our national highway system is not something you put aside. Without them this nation grinds to a halt. It is in our direct national interests. Saying we won't discuss them is absurd. However, this is a free nation and you are under no compulsion to discuss them. I am certain most of the politicians out there would prefer you don't. You are much easier to manipulate that way.

As for me, I take nothing at face value. I start with the assumption it is bullshit until proven otherwise. If that bothers you, then ignore me. That is your right.

Actually, I am dictating the questions.

NO you aren't because you attempt at dictating the question is a deflection from obama. I will not allow that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

BTW Reb, your last comment that we are way off topic is wrong. If you go back to the very first post you will find that we are dead on topic.

You're out of line and off topic. This is about obama and his tax and spend and control agenda.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigrebnc is off line and off topic because he refuses to answer topical questions that pertain to his OP.

He does this himself to others when he is getting butt hurt.

Answer the questions, bigrebnc.

 

[Too Tall]

That is not what it said. You said you read it. The draft of a bill would create a group whose job it woud be to explore alterntive funding for highways. Specifically using milage as a base. It didn't say additional, it said alternative. It didn't impose anything, it just said it would be explored. You seem to be indicating your are opposed to this and I am trying to figure out why. So far it looks like you are opposed not because of the idea put forth but solely on the basis of who put it forth. If the same idea had come from a republican, would it be ok then?

If I am wrong on that, then tell me what about the concept itself it is you are against and why. It sounds like a good idea to me.

To start with, I didn't read nor did I say I read the draft. Do you know what percentage of the gasoline tax is used to maintain the highways and bridges?

Here is one paragraph from an article you should read. The solution is not spending a few more million dollars on a study, but to fix the present system.

Some solutions to this funding shortfall are as simple and straightforward as building on the progress made under TEA-21 to restore the "trust" in the Highway Trust Fund. First, every reasonable effort must be made to dedicate more user fees to roads and highways. The 18.3 cents per gallon federal gas tax deposited in the Highway Trust Fund has winnowed through the years; approximately 15.44 cents accumulates in the Highway Account, with the remainder distributed to the Mass Transit Account (2.86 cents). While this formula dedicates 15.6 percent of the revenue from highway users to the Mass Transit Account, billions more also are diverted from the Highway Account to transit under special programs promoted by groups that hope to force people to give up their cars, live close to work and do daily business and errands by bicycle or on foot. The classic case is the $1 billion a year Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program, which cannot be used for highway-capacity projects and diverts more than half its funds to transit. This despite the fact that traffic-bottleneck removal, the surest means of reducing air pollution and congestion, is ineligible for funding. Since 1992, $14 billion has been spent on this program with little or no congestion or air-quality relief.

The rest of the article is here:

Q: Should gasoline-tax revenues be used exclusively for roads and bridges? YES: With a backlog of $325 billion for repair of roads and bridges, spend money on asphalt not museums and bike paths | Insight on the News Newspaper | Find Articles

On edit: We are WAY off topic and my apologies for getting caught in this trap.

If you refer to post #126, you will see that I asked you specifically if you had read the draft and you stated that you had. I took you at your word.

OK. Now I have to ask if you actually read the article. For you will note in the article that the number one thing it recommends is that we begin to use alternative funding sources to increase revenue, specifically user fees. IOW, they recommend precisely what you are objecting to.

My handle is Too Tall and won't find it on post #126. Now, did you read the article I linked? Based on the bolded statement, I will read the article you refer too.

I read this article: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/25/democrats-still-trying-to-push-new-mileage-tax/ and this article: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20047201-503544.html and I didn't see where there was any reference to what I reference in my article. The fact that millions of dollars are being siphoned off to subsidize mass transit, advertising campaigns and other BS that take away the funding for maintaining roads and bridges.

 

[PratchettFan]

Listen bub you're not dictating the questions. Do you understand this? When the government start exploring ways of wasting less money and making cuts we can then and only then discuss ways of creating more taxes on people who can't afford them.

Actually, I am dictating the questions. Whether you want to answer them is up to you. I don't control you but you don't control me either. Do you understand that?

Repairing, let alone maintaining, our national highway system is not something you put aside. Without them this nation grinds to a halt. It is in our direct national interests. Saying we won't discuss them is absurd. However, this is a free nation and you are under no compulsion to discuss them. I am certain most of the politicians out there would prefer you don't. You are much easier to manipulate that way.

As for me, I take nothing at face value. I start with the assumption it is bullshit until proven otherwise. If that bothers you, then ignore me. That is your right.

Actually, I am dictating the questions.

NO you aren't because you attempt at dictating the question is a deflection from obama. I will not allow that.

You will not allow? I don't believe I will allow you to not allow me. Good luck trying.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Its hard to believe you liberal cant see the difference between taxing in come and sales from penalizing you for NOT buying something......This my ignorant liberal friends is what Fascism really looks like.......

Maybe you missed what I said earlier.

I'm not going to be taxed for not having health insurance. Because I have it.

And your a idiot...You think this wont affect you.....

Of course it will affect me. I won't have to worry about a lapse in coverage affecting my ability to get coverage.

As far as paying more taxes, it won't though, because me+wife don't make 250k a year.

 

[PratchettFan]

To start with, I didn't read nor did I say I read the draft. Do you know what percentage of the gasoline tax is used to maintain the highways and bridges?

Here is one paragraph from an article you should read. The solution is not spending a few more million dollars on a study, but to fix the present system.



The rest of the article is here:

Q: Should gasoline-tax revenues be used exclusively for roads and bridges? YES: With a backlog of $325 billion for repair of roads and bridges, spend money on asphalt not museums and bike paths | Insight on the News Newspaper | Find Articles

On edit: We are WAY off topic and my apologies for getting caught in this trap.

If you refer to post #126, you will see that I asked you specifically if you had read the draft and you stated that you had. I took you at your word.

OK. Now I have to ask if you actually read the article. For you will note in the article that the number one thing it recommends is that we begin to use alternative funding sources to increase revenue, specifically user fees. IOW, they recommend precisely what you are objecting to.

My handle is Too Tall and won't find it on post #126. Now, did you read the article I linked? Based on the bolded statement, I will read the article you refer too.

I read this article: Democrats still trying to push new mileage tax « Hot Air and this article: Mileage tax a "practical option," budget analysts tell Congress - Political Hotsheet - CBS News and I didn't see where there was any reference to what I reference in my article. The fact that millions of dollars are being siphoned off to subsidize mass transit, advertising campaigns and other BS that take away the funding for maintaining roads and bridges.

My apologies. I did not notice the name change. Entirely my mistake.

I did read the article. It calls for an increase in user fees, which is what the particular bill in question references. At least it wishes to explore the idea. If you pull up the article you can access the draft itself and read it for yourself. I believe the pertinent section is around page 168 but you can find it by doing a search for "mileage-based". Draw you own conclusions as to its impact.

You are not going to get me to disagree that the gas tax should be dedicated to the highways. However, if you think that problem is solely the result of one side of the aisle or the other, you are mistaken.

 

[PratchettFan]

BTW Reb, your last comment that we are way off topic is wrong. If you go back to the very first post you will find that we are dead on topic.

You're out of line and off topic. This is about obama and his tax and spend and control agenda.

I am in line and on topic. This is about your claim of an impending mileage tax.

 

[Vast LWC]

Are you people still talking about this long-dead proposal, that pretty much everyone shot down as soon as they heard it?

Give it a rest. This is a non-issue.

It would have been be perfectly legal to do before Obamacare even existed and still would be perfectly legal, but neither Congress or the President would ever pass it, because it's a damn stupid idea.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

BTW Reb, your last comment that we are way off topic is wrong. If you go back to the very first post you will find that we are dead on topic.

You're out of line and off topic. This is about obama and his tax and spend and control agenda.

I am in line and on topic. This is about your claim of an impending mileage tax.

If obama is re-elected he will pursue the tax, he has never strayed from his attempt to bankrupt America's energy companies.
So shut the fuck up you fucking obama drone.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Are you people still talking about this long-dead proposal, that pretty much everyone shot down as soon as they heard it?

Give it a rest. This is a non-issue.

It would have been be perfectly legal to do before Obamacare even existed and still would be perfectly legal, but neither Congress or the President would ever pass it, because it's a damn stupid idea.

obamatax just gave it new life.

 

[Big Fitz]

Obummercare has no bearing on that scenario.

Since obamacare is a tax yes it does.

Tell us again how Hitler was a Left-winger.

National Socialist party? aka Nazi for short?

strange branding failure?

Liberalism = Socialism = Progressivsm = Collectivism = Communism = Marxism = Fascism

One again, the leftist rainbow is on display.

Freakout for the weaker sisters in 3...2...1...

 

[Vast LWC]

Here I can make some shit up too...

Fascism=Monarchism=TheGreatSchism=Martianism=Masochism

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Since obamacare is a tax yes it does.

Tell us again how Hitler was a Left-winger.

National Socialist party? aka Nazi for short?

strange branding failure?

Liberalism = Socialism = Progressivsm = Collectivism = Communism = Marxism = Fascism

One again, the leftist rainbow is on display.

Freakout for the weaker sisters in 3...2...1...

Pretty much.

 

[Big Fitz]

Here I can make some shit up too...

Fascism=Monarchism=TheGreatSchism=Martianism=Masochism

Only if you are an idiot does it have no meaning.

 

[Vast LWC]

Here I can make some shit up too...

Fascism=Monarchism=TheGreatSchism=Martianism=Masochism

Only if you are an idiot does it have no meaning.

In other words, my sarcastic imitation was extremely effective! Thanks!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Since obamacare is a tax yes it does.

Tell us again how Hitler was a Left-winger.

National Socialist party? aka Nazi for short?

strange branding failure?

Liberalism = Socialism = Progressivsm = Collectivism = Communism = Marxism = Fascism

One again, the leftist rainbow is on display.

Freakout for the weaker sisters in 3...2...1...

big fitz is hacking and lacking.

as usual.

Killed the socialist, the communists, and the liberals, and would have welcomed the bigrebs and fitzes in a heartbeat.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Tell us again how Hitler was a Left-winger.

National Socialist party? aka Nazi for short?

strange branding failure?

Liberalism = Socialism = Progressivsm = Collectivism = Communism = Marxism = Fascism

One again, the leftist rainbow is on display.

Freakout for the weaker sisters in 3...2...1...

Pretty much.

If the word "socialism" in NSDAP's name makes them "socialist", that must make the Council of Conservative Citizens the spokespeople for all Conservatives, right?