Gas tax time?

[Mr.Conley]

Actually, i'm glad libs rarely do more than discuss things. Their ineffetiveness is their only redeeming quality.

Then could you do it for me? I'm sure that if we put a self-declared conservative such as yourself on the issue then China woulfd immediantly end its subsidies. Here is the official Chinese government website. http://www.gov.cn/

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Then could you do it for me? I'm sure that if we put a self-declared conservative such as yourself on the issue then China woulfd immediantly end its subsidies. Here is the official Chinese government website. http://www.gov.cn/

Go sterilize your own truss.

 

[Mr.Conley]

rtwng,
If you are only going to insult me, then please limit it to a PM. Please don't waste other people's time posting baseless accusations that are completely irrelevant.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

rtwng,
If you are only going to insult me, then please limit it to a PM. Please don't waste other people's time posting baseless accusations that are completely irrelevant.

Don't take away his livelihood!

 

[MtnBiker]

I do ride a bike and take the bus/subway. In fact, I've never driven a car.

Interesting, someone who is supporting higher tax on a commodity and who does not directly use that product.

Not all of us can or want to live in an urban area that would allow a person not to drive.

 

[MtnBiker]

Correct. However I envision a higher gas tax as making alternatives to oil more practical, rather than making other oil sources preferable.

Why? because the price will rise and the demand will lower creating a government controlled market.

Again if that is your vision, why not avoid the tax collection and have the government ration gasoline? Control the supply and the price will also go up.

 

[sitarro]

How about a tax on rediculously expensive boondoggles like "THE BIG DIG"? Or a huge tax on colleges that are full of shit like Harvard and Yale? We could also tax the crap out of bicyclist, register and license them and make sure they can pass traffic law tests? How about a pedestrian tax, you have to wear a pedometer and are taxed by the step. . . sidewalks aren't free you know.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Interesting, someone who is supporting higher tax on a commodity and who does not directly use that product.

Not all of us can or want to live in an urban area that would allow a person not to drive.

I would still be affected. Indirectly I do still rely on gasoline. The food, books, and clothing are transportated on an oil based transportation system. Short of going Amish, no one can fully escape oil.

Why? because the price will rise and the demand will lower creating a government controlled market.

A 10-20% tax increase and the most profitable, powerful, and important industry in history will become nothing more than a tool of the government?

Again if that is your vision, why not avoid the tax collection and have the government ration gasoline? Control the supply and the price will also go up.

Too likely to be corrupted. Too hard to manage. Too much to supply. Too much power to the government.

How about a tax on rediculouly expensive boondoggles like "THE BIG DIG"?

Well those projects are already being funded by taxes so the money would probably just end up where it was already. That would just be a pointless waste of time and money.

Or a huge tax on colleges that are full of shit like Harvard and Yale?

Well, Harvard only has 25 billion in endowment, so it certainly could not provide any significant portion of the federal budget. Plus its nonprofit, a major research institute, widely hailed as one of the premier centers of hiugher education on the planet, and certainly not full of shit. As for Yale, give it to Turkey for some boron.

We could also tax the crap out of bicyclist, register and license them and make sure they can pass traffic law tests?

The government certainly could, what would be the point of it though, except to increase oil consumption.

How about a pedestrian tax, you have to wear a pedometer and are taxed by the step. . . sidewalks aren't free you know.

Similar arguements have certainly been made concerning cars. Britain is implementing such a system for vehicles. Of course, in this particular case, people would probably just start walking on dirt.

Anything to say concerning a gas tax.

 

[MtnBiker]

I would still be affected. Indirectly I do still rely on gasoline. The food, books, and clothing are transportated on an oil based transportation system. Short of going Amish, no one can fully escape oil.

Yes of course you would be effected but marginally compared to someone who is required to drive for a living. As all of the needs to you are effect so to are they for other people as well, including those that do a considerable amount of driving.

A 10-20% tax increase and the most profitable, powerful, and important industry in history will become nothing more than a tool of the government?

But you are arguing that the government place false prices on a commidity to encourage development of alternative fuels. I'm not saying the industry would be a tool of the government, you want to government to be the tool of the market.

Too likely to be corrupted. Too hard to manage. Too much to supply. Too much power to the government.

Yet you believe that they will manage tax revenue in a less corrupt way and that the revenue will give them less power?

I am begining to believe you really do not care about the oil supply rather you are looking for another way for the government to raise tax on people.

 

[sitarro]

I would still be affected. Indirectly I do still rely on gasoline. The food, books, and clothing are transportated on an oil based transportation system. Short of going Amish, no one can fully escape oil.

Transportated?
The poorest of us would be severly effected for what, so Ted Kennedy and John Kerry could continue to burn much more energy than a typical hundred Americans. Aren't these the progressive thinkers that refuse to allow a wind farm off of "their" coastline.

A 10-20% tax increase and the most profitable, powerful, and important industry in history will become nothing more than a tool of the government?

Why is it so hard for you people to understand, corporations don't pay taxes, their customers pay in higher prices. They may make a large profit, that is what America is about, but they also employ a giant workforce that make high wages. The thousands of businesses that exist to service them employ 100s 0f thousands of people, oil in general is responsible for millions of jobs. The gains from research sponsored by these same corporations dwarf whatever Haaaarvaaad has done. Everytime you screw with the way things are done effects the poor the most. Idiots that have sued to prevent the construction of any new refineries since the seventies have done irreparable damage to our country. The same goes for nuclear power. I guess the real goal of the left is to get us all back to the good old days of horse back travel, plenty of shit to pick up though(guess you guys didn't think that far).

Too likely to be corrupted. Too hard to manage. Too much to supply. Too much power to the government.

Just hire Halliburton, the only group qualified to handle such an undertaking but then that would be a problem too wouldn't it.

Well those projects are already being funded by taxes so the money would probably just end up where it was already. That would just be a pointless waste of time and money.

No, tax the assholes that come up with pork projects like these. . . John Kerry?

Well, Harvard only has 25 billion in endowment, so it certainly could not provide any significant portion of the federal budget. Plus its nonprofit, a major research institute, widely hailed as one of the premier centers of hiugher education on the planet, and certainly not full of shit. As for Yale, give it to Turkey for some boron.

That's right , I remember a Harvard study last year that proved the hysteria over global warming and it's so called cause was a bunch of bull shit. Turns out the "scientists" that are claiming the planet has never been this warm didn't go back in time that far.

Similar arguements have certainly been made concerning cars. Britain is implementing such a system for vehicles. Of course, in this particular case, people would probably just start walking on dirt.

Europeans have had obscene taxes on their fuel for years, I don't seem to remember any great strides in alternative fuel from them. They also have the Autobahn where vehicles get the least fuel efficiency of anywhere on the planet.

Anything to say concerning a gas tax.

Yea, it's an asswipe idea from someone that doesn't even drive, go discuss some more pretend solutions with your sorority sisters....giggle giggle.

 

[sitarro]

I am begining to believe you really do not care about the oil supply rather you are looking for another way for the government to raise tax on people.

She sounds like a good little socialist, your parents must be very proud CONley. Speaking of a waste of tax dollars. . . rebuilding Old Orleans, no pork there?

 

[MtnBiker]

Certianly no corruption.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

rtwng,
If you are only going to insult me, then please limit it to a PM. Please don't waste other people's time posting baseless accusations that are completely irrelevant.

SHut yer commie piehole.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Don't take away his livelihood!

You want some more, tough guy?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

You want some more, tough guy?

:rotflmao:

 

[MtnBiker]

Both of you guys knock it off.

I want this thread to stay on topic.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Both of you guys knock it off.

I want this thread to stay on topic.

I second that.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Yes of course you would be effected but marginally compared to someone who is required to drive for a living.

Everyone would be affected. Some more than others. You can argue that any tax is bad because it will always negatively affect someone. For example, a gas station owner is hurt by a tax on cigarettes.
[/quote]

As all of the needs to you are effect so to are they for other people as well, including those that do a considerable amount of driving.

Sorry... what?

But you are arguing that the government place false prices on a commidity to encourage development of alternative fuels. I'm not saying the industry would be a tool of the government, you want to government to be the tool of the market.

I'm saying the government should create an incentive for corporations to find alternatives to oil. Similar to the tax rebates and incentives offered to nuclear power plants in the recent energy bill.

Yet you believe that they will manage tax revenue in a less corrupt way and that the revenue will give them less power?

Not so much that they would be less corrupt, more there would be less to be corrupted. And yes, I believe a 10% tax on oil would give the government less power than a monopoly over 100% of the oil.

I am begining to believe you really do not care about the oil supply rather you are looking for another way for the government to raise tax on people.

Though untrue, that is your opinion, and although it is unrelated to the topic, it is your right to post as such.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Transportated?

SPELLING!!!! Is that it!?!?! Is that all you can think of???? And this is from the person whose own user name is grammatically incorrect! Go read some Old(e) English and come talk to me about spelling then, after your headache cools down that is.

The poorest of us would be severly effected for what, so Ted Kennedy and John Kerry could continue to burn much more energy than a typical hundred Americans. Aren't these the progressive thinkers that refuse to allow a wind farm off of "their" coastline.

Same arguement against the National Sales Tax. Is someone a closest democrat? Yes you are correct. The rich will be less affected because they are rich. This is generally true of flat taxes.
As for the Cape Wind travesty. I was shocked. Although I have never seen anything linking Ted Kennedy or John Kerry to that debacle, it was horrendous.

Why is it so hard for you people to understand, corporations don't pay taxes, their customers pay in higher prices. They may make a large profit, that is what America is about, but they also employ a giant workforce that make high wages. The thousands of businesses that exist to service them employ 100s 0f thousands of people, oil in general is responsible for millions of jobs.

I agree. However, we are going to be hitting a major oil supply issue very soon. Plus do you really want to rely on the Middle East for oil? On dictators who channel money to Bin Laden? Because if you do, then by all means lets keep things the way they are.

The gains from research sponsored by these same corporations dwarf whatever Haaaarvaaad has done.

Probably becaue Harvard is a university, in the business of teaching the people who go on to work at the corporate labs and companies and such. Then again more members of the Harvard faculty have won Noble Prizes then any other insitution on the planet. Also faculty members consist of the highest percentage of the National Academy of Science. Are you saying that Harvard and the Ivies are irrelevant?

Thats because the poor have the most to gain and the most to lose.
Regulations have held up refineries. Nuclear plants generally encounter NIMBYism.

I guess the real goal of the left is to get us all back to the good old days of horse back travel, plenty of shit to pick up though(guess you guys didn't think that far).

Conjecture and irrelevant to the discussion.

Just hire Halliburton, the only group qualified to handle such an undertaking but then that would be a problem too wouldn't it.

I would are that companies such as Haddington could do the job to, but whoever did the best job, cost the least, and wasn't corrupt should get the job, regardless of whether or not their name is Halliburton or not.

No, tax the assholes that come up with pork projects like these. . . John Kerry?

Considering that the Big Dig was first concieved in the mid 70s, and construction began in 1982. Also in light of the fact that John Kerry wasn't inaugurated into public office as Lieutenant Govenor of Massachusetts until 1983, I would say you have no basis for saying John Kerry is responsible for the Big Dig, although he does pay taxes.

That's right , I remember a Harvard study last year that proved the hysteria over global warming and it's so called cause was a bunch of bull shit. Turns out the "scientists" that are claiming the planet has never been this warm didn't go back in time that far.

Thats great...
I thought we agreed climate change is a topic for another thread.

Europeans have had obscene taxes on their fuel for years, I don't seem to remember any great strides in alternative fuel from them. They also have the Autobahn where vehicles get the least fuel efficiency of anywhere on the planet.

Europe represents only a small fraction of the oil market. Since changes in Europe would doubtfully expand across a world where oil was still the cheaper alternative, Europe would merely be hobbled by being unable to connect with a world still running on oil. An example of this would be how Apple and Windows computers can't interact. And because Windows is the dominate platform, Apple continues to languish in a distant second.

Yea, it's an asswipe idea from someone that doesn't even drive, go discuss some more pretend solutions with your sorority sisters....giggle giggle.

You insults and foul language demonstrate that you have nothing relevant to say, and that your position is increasingly invalid.

 

[sitarro]

SPELLING!!!! Is that it!?!?! Is that all you can think of???? And this is from the person whose own user name is grammatically incorrect! Go read some Old(e) English and come talk to me about spelling then, after your headache cools down that is.

We all have typos on this message board but your posts tend to be littered with so many that they are hard to read, sorry if I expect more from an Ivy Leaguer. Transportated is not a typo it is nowhere close to a word. Please explain to an old uneducated fart how my user name is grammatically incorrect.

Same arguement against the National Sales Tax. Is someone a closest democrat? Yes you are correct. The rich will be less affected because they are rich. This is generally true of flat taxes.
As for the Cape Wind travesty. I was shocked. Although I have never seen anything linking Ted Kennedy or John Kerry to that debacle, it was horrendous.

I guess you missed this...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11/21/MNG5H9V40D1.DTL

Massachusetts' Republican Gov. Mitt Romney and Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy, whose family compound in Hyannis would look out at the wind farm -- have warned that the unsightly turbines would depress property values and damage the local economy, which relies heavily on tourism. A Beacon Hill Institute study, commissioned by the opponents of the project, said 21 percent of the 98,000 jobs on Cape Cod were in tourism-related industries in 2000.
Romney has said the wind farm should not be built in "a national treasure. "
Kennedy said through his spokesman, David Smith, that he was opposed to "turning over public lands for private commercial use."
Kennedy's nephew, Robert Kennedy Jr., a prominent New York environmentalist, has also spoken against the wind farm.
"People go to the cape because they want to connect themselves with the history and the culture," he told Boston's NPR affiliate, WBUR, in 2002. "They want to see the same scenes the Pilgrims saw when they landed at Plymouth Rock. "
Sen. John Kerry -- whose windsurfing across the Nantucket Sound was immortalized in Republican campaign ads and who ran for the presidency on a strong alternative energy platform -- said he will wait for the final government report on the project, due at the end of 2005, before he takes a stand on the issue. Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, own a house on Nantucket.

I agree. However, we are going to be hitting a major oil supply issue very soon. Plus do you really want to rely on the Middle East for oil? On dictators who channel money to Bin Laden? Because if you do, then by all means lets keep things the way they are.
Probably becaue Harvard is a university, in the business of teaching the people who go on to work at the corporate labs and companies and such. Then again more members of the Harvard faculty have won Noble Prizes then any other insitution on the planet. Also faculty members consist of the highest percentage of the National Academy of Science. Are you saying that Harvard and the Ivies are irrelevant?

When Arafat and that dimwit Carter received Nobel prizes, it's relevance disappeared. We have been warned since the discovery of oil that we would run out next week, scientist aren't that knowledgeable, they do little more than make an educated guess. Most scientist are no more reliable than the people that are funding them.

Thats because the poor have the most to gain and the most to lose.
Regulations have held up refineries. Nuclear plants generally encounter NIMBYism.

Why were these regulations written? Politicians caving into psuedo environmentalist demands? President Bush has proposed using some of the many bases closed by the Clinton administration for refinery sites, brilliant idea.

I would are that companies such as Haddington could do the job to, but whoever did the best job, cost the least, and wasn't corrupt should get the job, regardless of whether or not their name is Halliburton or not.

So would Haddington be more politically correct because they aren't American?

Considering that the Big Dig was first concieved in the mid 70s, and construction began in 1982. Also in light of the fact that John Kerry wasn't inaugurated into public office as Lieutenant Govenor of Massachusetts until 1983, I would say you have no basis for saying John Kerry is responsible for the Big Dig, although he does pay taxes.

http://www.massturnpike.com/bigdig/updates/progress_challenges.html
Actually construction started in 91 and both of these hypocrites played cheerleader for it. It originally was suppose to cost 2 billion. It is now somewhere near 20 billion and leaking....good job. Did Havvvad engineers come up with this boondoggle?

Europe represents only a small fraction of the oil market. Since changes in Europe would doubtfully expand across a world where oil was still the cheaper alternative, Europe would merely be hobbled by being unable to connect with a world still running on oil. An example of this would be how Apple and Windows computers can't interact. And because Windows is the dominate platform, Apple continues to languish in a distant second.

Apple is languishing? That makes as much sense as the rest of the paragraph.
Apple today closed with marketcap of $72.13 billion, surpassing Dell's $71.97 billion and making it one of the most valuable PC vendors in the world (behind HP).... I would love to have such a languishing company.

You insults and foul language demonstrate that you have nothing relevant to say, and that your position is increasingly invalid.

You ignore or don't understand what Mt. Biker and I have said so....... :fu2: :finger: