After the obamacare ruling will this be possible?

[bigrebnc1775]

You said if he is re-elected we would have a milage tax. That is a brand new tax. My question to you is why you think that. I am still waiting for you to explain what you said, not for you to change the subject.

The chances are very good. There is a wealth of information on how it can come to be


Wrong Way: Obama Flirts with Vehicle Miles Tax | FDL Action

True enough if they are doing research on a plan the tax is the next step.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Firedoglake?

That makes bigreb look like a liberal!

 

[Full-Auto]

Firedoglake?

That makes bigreb look like a liberal!

Idiot and I type that with all sincerity.


You have said on many occasions you were going to school me.

WELL YOU ******* COWARD BRING IT..................

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have schooled you every time you were stupid enough to mix it up with me.

So, post your evidence, and let's rock.

If you don't, you fail and have been schooled again.

Firedoglake?

That makes bigreb look like a liberal!

Idiot and I type that with all sincerity.


You have said on many occasions you were going to school me.

WELL YOU ******* COWARD BRING IT..................

 

[PratchettFan]

You said if he is re-elected we would have a milage tax. That is a brand new tax. My question to you is why you think that. I am still waiting for you to explain what you said, not for you to change the subject.

The chances are very good. There is a wealth of information on how it can come to be


Wrong Way: Obama Flirts with Vehicle Miles Tax | FDL Action

True enough if they are doing research on a plan the tax is the next step.

Did you actually read the draft?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The chances are very good. There is a wealth of information on how it can come to be


Wrong Way: Obama Flirts with Vehicle Miles Tax | FDL Action

True enough if they are doing research on a plan the tax is the next step.

Did you actually read the draft?

Yes I did, did you you? I bet you thought obama was being truthful when he said obamacare wasn't a tax?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Firedoglake?

That makes bigreb look like a liberal!

Idiot and I type that with all sincerity.


You have said on many occasions you were going to school me.

WELL YOU ******* COWARD BRING IT..................

Jokey always does that internet chest beating thing. Like he's some billy bad ass brainy-act. He always fails then turns around and claims victory.

 

[PratchettFan]

True enough if they are doing research on a plan the tax is the next step.

Did you actually read the draft?

Yes I did, did you you? I bet you thought obama was being truthful when he said obamacare wasn't a tax?

I take it then you consider it inappropriate to explore alternative methods to fund the upkeep on our national highway system?

And yes, I did read that part of it. I didn't read the entire 500 pages.

 

[Full-Auto]

I have schooled you every time you were stupid enough to mix it up with me.

So, post your evidence, and let's rock.

If you don't, you fail and have been schooled again.

Firedoglake?

That makes bigreb look like a liberal!

Idiot and I type that with all sincerity.


You have said on many occasions you were going to school me.

WELL YOU ******* COWARD BRING IT..................

THE COWARD WITH NO WORDS.


You can not back up anything you say.

Which is why I am going to **** with you from here out.

*****.......................

 

[JakeStarkey]

Post your evidence or you admit you FAIL.

I have schooled you every time you were stupid enough to mix it up with me.

So, post your evidence, and let's rock.

If you don't, you fail and have been schooled again.

Idiot and I type that with all sincerity.


You have said on many occasions you were going to school me.

WELL YOU ******* COWARD BRING IT..................

THE COWARD WITH NO WORDS.


You can not back up anything you say.

Which is why I am going to **** with you from here out.

*****.......................

 

[Too Tall]

I got this in an e-mail and am too lazy to fact check it. Can anyone tell me if it is the truth.

"The per person Medicare insurance premium will increase from the present
monthly fee of $96.40, rising to:

$104.20 in 2012
$120.20 in 2013
and
$247.00 in 2014."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Did you actually read the draft?

Yes I did, did you you? I bet you thought obama was being truthful when he said obamacare wasn't a tax?

I take it then you consider it inappropriate to explore alternative methods to fund the upkeep on our national highway system?

And yes, I did read that part of it. I didn't read the entire 500 pages.

I took the time to read every page of the house version of obamacare. Unlike the supports of obamacare.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes I did, did you you? I bet you thought obama was being truthful when he said obamacare wasn't a tax?

I take it then you consider it inappropriate to explore alternative methods to fund the upkeep on our national highway system?

And yes, I did read that part of it. I didn't read the entire 500 pages.

I took the time to read every page of the house version of obamacare. Unlike the supports of obamacare.

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?

 

[Too Tall]

Even a hard lefty twit opposes a tax increase when it affects her election chances.

Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren is one of the last people you’d expect to write an op-ed that advocates for a partial repeal of Obamacare — but she’s done just that.

As The Heritage Foundation’s Mike Brownfield reports, Warren opposes the medical device tax embedded in Obamacare on the basis that it will cripple medical device manufacturers in Massachusetts. The medical device industry employs 24,000 people and is responsible for 13 percent of exports in the state Warren hopes to win. What choice, really, does she have but to oppose the tax?

Elizabeth Warren wants a part of Obamacare repealed? « Hot Air

 

[Too Tall]

I take it then you consider it inappropriate to explore alternative methods to fund the upkeep on our national highway system?

And yes, I did read that part of it. I didn't read the entire 500 pages.

I took the time to read every page of the house version of obamacare. Unlike the supports of obamacare.

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?

If the gasoline tax was ALL spent on the upkeep of our national highway system, we wouldn't need an alternative method to pay for it. Substitute the word additional in place of alternative if you are a Democrat.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I take it then you consider it inappropriate to explore alternative methods to fund the upkeep on our national highway system?

And yes, I did read that part of it. I didn't read the entire 500 pages.

I took the time to read every page of the house version of obamacare. Unlike the supports of obamacare.

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.

 

[PratchettFan]

I took the time to read every page of the house version of obamacare. Unlike the supports of obamacare.

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?

If the gasoline tax was ALL spent on the upkeep of our national highway system, we wouldn't need an alternative method to pay for it. Substitute the word additional in place of alternative if you are a Democrat.

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.

 

[PratchettFan]

I took the time to read every page of the house version of obamacare. Unlike the supports of obamacare.

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.

 

[Too Tall]

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?

If the gasoline tax was ALL spent on the upkeep of our national highway system, we wouldn't need an alternative method to pay for it. Substitute the word additional in place of alternative if you are a Democrat.

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.

 

[PratchettFan]

If the gasoline tax was ALL spent on the upkeep of our national highway system, we wouldn't need an alternative method to pay for it. Substitute the word additional in place of alternative if you are a Democrat.

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.