BEFORE Trying To Simply Hike the Fuel Tax . . .
BretC...@peoplepc.com
increase in federal fuel taxes.
The overall effect is drivers would be paid to use less fuel.
Anyone who shifts away from driving or at least from driving low mpg
vehicles would come out ahead economically and anyone who really
needed to drive to work or drive a truck to work would still be able
to afford it.
Bret Cahill
The Trucker
> The deal needs to include a revenue neutral IRS rebate to cover the
> increase in federal fuel taxes.
>
> The overall effect is drivers would be paid to use less fuel.
That is correct. Revenue neutrality is the key to this. The increase or
decrease in overall taxation is a different matter.
> Anyone who shifts away from driving or at least from driving low mpg
> vehicles would come out ahead economically and anyone who really
> needed to drive to work or drive a truck to work would still be able
> to afford it.
That is true in the most cases. But a person that actually drives a truck
(long haul) for a living is going to lose no matter what. There are more
fuel efficient ways to deliver freight over long distances and the people
who ship the commodities will be discovering these methods. That is
economic reality and there is nothing that should be done about it but
perhaps to increase the progressive nature of the tax system and
redistribute benefits at the bottom where people are being put our of work
due to the increasing efficiencies. -- Share the pain -- This is not the
fault of the drivers and many of these efficiency improvements should have
already been done. The Bush solution is to use Mexican nationals as
drivers and pay them half of what is being paid to American nationals.
That allows more to be spent on fuel (money in the pocket of Bush and his
pals) due to the savings in wages. More "profit" and less wages. How
very Republican.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
HarryNadds
There we go.The typical moonbat response. Mandate that the american
people make drastic lifestyle changes instead of doing the right thing
and drilling for oil and building refineries.Will your mandate include
the elites in Hollywood and the limousine liberals in Washington??
Did'nt think so.
HarryNadds
What "more efficient" ways are you referring to? Rail? Ship? Carrier
pidgeon? You think long haul trucks are part of the problem?? You
willing to put thousands of truck drivers out of a job??
The Trucker
There we go: The usual pinhead binary brain "My way or the highway"
rightarded response to what is a rational idea. More drilling and more
exploration are not precluded by the suggested tax and redistribution
idea. It is not one or the other. But the rightarded can only deal with
the one or other binary decision making.
And the point was totally lost in that the "elites in Hollywood and the
limousine liberals in Washington" will be subsidizing the common people.
What we see in the response is the typical "stupidity on steroids" of the
Reich.
The Trucker
Mostly rail. But actual the substitute is irrelevant. The economics
demands a more efficient means of delivery.
> You think long haul trucks are part of the problem??
Of course they are. It is much less fuel intensive to put the stuff on
the rail.
> You
> willing to put thousands of truck drivers out of a job??
No. Most truckers will be quite busy on shorter runs between the
rail-yard and the manufacturer and the regional warehouse or Wall-Mart
style retail center. The long haulers will be short haulers. They will go
home at night as opposed to sleeping in a truck. They will have wives and
kids like normal people. It will just be different.
Day Brown
> What "more efficient" ways are you referring to? Rail? Ship? Carrier
> pidgeon? You think long haul trucks are part of the problem?? You
> willing to put thousands of truck drivers out of a job??
way so that it would be owned and maintained by the government the same
as the highways, waterways, and airports.
Then- permit investors to go into business with the running gear in an
open, and competitive free market rather than the regulated system the
massive rail corporations now have.
Moreover, convert the rails to a new wide track design that could go
much faster and carry loads wider than a box car. In this case, they
could piggie back truck trailers or freighter containers side by side on
flat cars, or use the flat cars to carry your car, at high speed, cross
country. You could drive on a flatcar at the station, with the driver's
side facing the front of the train, then drive off at your destination.
then, you'd only need gas for local driving. There's also a design to
power the engine with coal, with high efficiency steam turbines and
highly effective emission control, which would reduce air pollution as
well as dramatically reduce the need for oil imports.
The Ghost In The Machine
<mik...@verizon.net>
wrote
on Sat, 03 May 2008 15:09:44 -0700
<pan.2008.05.03....@verizon.net>:
I highly doubt that. If X number of truckers are doing
long-haul 12-hour runs (give or take), and the rail
replaces these runs with, say, short-haul 30-minute runs, the
arithmetic suggests that we'd only need X/24 the number
of truckers, all other things being the same, since each
trucker could theoretically make 24 runs in the same time
he made 1 before the switchover.
In practice, there's issues such as breaks involved, but
I certainly don't see *more* employment for drivers here.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Burto...@gmail.com
I knew it would finally pop up. Nationalized rail. Please list all the
things the government does well.
Burto...@gmail.com
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> In sci.econ, The Trucker
> <mik...@verizon.net>
> wrote
> on Sat, 03 May 2008 15:09:44 -0700
>
> - Show quoted text -
You missed the point. The point for a liberal kook is nationalizing
rail,or trucking, or the oil industry or manufacturing cars, planes,
ships, houses etc. It's what the left always wants. They just won't
come out and tell you unless you dig it out of them.
The Trucker
Wrong scale and wrong definition of "long haul". A decent length load for
me was 1500 miles and I much preferred 2000 miles. You can drive 11 hrs a
day or break the hours of service rules. Most drivers will run 8 or 9
hours a day. You average about 60mph and so you you run about 500 miles.
It takes 3 days for a 1500 miler and typically it will take 4 days for the
2000. The point is that there is more work involved in the train
stuff. You load the trailer and instead of delivering it you take it to
the rail yard and put it on the train. The same thing happens on the
other end as the driver there has to get it from the rail yard and deliver
it. There is twice as much actual work and a lot less driving.
> In practice, there's issues such as breaks involved, but
> I certainly don't see *more* employment for drivers here.
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
There is more work to do. I HATE short trips because I get paid by the
mile. The time to load and unload and screw around in city traffic is all
overhead to me. Local truckers get paid by the hour and sit at the
loading docks waiting to get the truck loaded and they don't mind. I
simply get angry about it. No long haul no ME. But fuel costs too much
and everyone is going inter-modal.
Steven L.
> On Sat, 03 May 2008 08:11:40 -0700, BretCahill wrote:
>
>> The deal needs to include a revenue neutral IRS rebate to cover the
>> increase in federal fuel taxes.
>>
>> The overall effect is drivers would be paid to use less fuel.
>
> That is correct. Revenue neutrality is the key to this. The increase or
> decrease in overall taxation is a different matter.
>
>> Anyone who shifts away from driving or at least from driving low mpg
>> vehicles would come out ahead economically and anyone who really
>> needed to drive to work or drive a truck to work would still be able
>> to afford it.
>
> That is true in the most cases. But a person that actually drives a truck
> (long haul) for a living is going to lose no matter what.
I've thought about whether, instead of a "windfall profits tax" on oil
companies, we could provide a "windfall tax credit" to such small
businesses to compensate them for the declining purchasing power of the
dollar. That is, if the dollar declines 20%, then the price of their
fuel has risen 20% in dollars. That should be deductible or credited as
a business expense.
After all, it's not THEIR fault that the dollar is declining. That's
due to deliberate Federal Reserve policy. Why should private business
be penalized?
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
You why we have gridlock in Washington. Conservatives like you won't
accept ANY conservation policies (didn't you know the words
"conservative" and "conserve" had the same root). While liberals like
Greenpeace won't accept any additional oil drilling. And the gridlock
goes on.
I would like to lock the both of you in a room and insist you compromise
on a bipartisan policy you both can sign up to. That means you must
accept some conservation, and the liberals must accept some oil production.
The Trucker
Typical moron crap.
The cost of fuel precludes the use of trucks over
long distances unless we're talking about really perishable like live
lobsters or meat or the like. Most of the stuff I hauled was frozen and
it can stay frozen on a rail car or in a warehouse just as well as hooked
to a tractor on the interstate.
Rightarded stupidity, however, seems to trump everything. It all becomes
a religious proposition.
The Trucker
Actually the fall of the dollar is due to fiscal policies. The burning of
money the Iraq furnace and no taxation to recover the spending.
The Trucker
I'd go for that.
ZerkonX
> It's what the left always wants.
Define 'the left' with an concrete example please.
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> Define 'the left' with an concrete example please.
Anyone who supports a revenue neutral combination of rebates and fuel
taxes.
Bret Cahill
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> Define 'the left' with an concrete example please.
The 78% of Americans who reject Dumbya Bush.
Bret Cahill
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> > I certainly don't see *more* employment for drivers here.
> > ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**
> There is more work to do. �
That's going to be true in general with spiraling fuel prices.
Cheap oil => easy street
Expensive oil => plowing fields with oxen
The only reason unemployment might rise is because humans just won't
have time to adapt psychologically, politically, etc.
Bret Cahill
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> >> increase in federal fuel taxes.
>
> >> The overall effect is drivers would be paid to use less fuel.
>
> > That is correct. �Revenue neutrality is the key to this. �The increase or
> > decrease in overall taxation is a different matter.
>
> >> Anyone who shifts away from driving or at least from driving low mpg
> >> vehicles would come out ahead economically and anyone who really
> >> needed to drive to work or drive a truck to work would still be able
> >> to afford it.
>
> > That is true in the most cases. �But a person that actually drives a truck
> > (long haul) for a living is going to lose no matter what. �
>
> I've thought about whether, instead of a "windfall profits tax" on oil
> companies, we could provide a "windfall tax credit" to such small
> businesses to compensate them for the declining purchasing power of the
> dollar. �That is, if the dollar declines 20%, then the price of their
> fuel has risen 20% in dollars. �That should be deductible or credited as
> a business expense.
>
> After all, it's not THEIR fault that the dollar is declining. �That's
> due to deliberate Federal Reserve policy. �Why should private business
> be penalized?
They voted for and support GOP tax cuts for the rich.
Bret Cahill
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> accept ANY conservation policies (didn't you know the words
> "conservative" and "conserve" had the same root). �While liberals like
Oil is traded on the $12 billion/day world market where _demand_ is
increasing much faster than anything that could be supplied by
additional drilling so spiraling fuel costs will continue if you drill
ANWR, Gulf-Florida and every other place on earth.
Sticking your head into the sand on the magnitude of the demand curve
ain't gonna reduce or even slow the increase in fuel prices.
What part of "it's over" do rightards _not_ understand?
Bret Cahill
BretC...@peoplepc.com
That's up to scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs to propose and
for _markets_ to decide.
But if you want to discuss tech issues you need to start another
thread or go to sci.energy because it is entirely irrelevant to a
revenue neutral fuel tax.
You can discuss Henry George here, however.
George proposed taxing land at it's full rental value.
Bret Cahill
orang...@googlemail.com
Using taxes to make people do what you want is a very slippery slope.
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> > increase in federal fuel taxes.
> > The overall effect is drivers would be paid to use less fuel.
> > Anyone who shifts away from driving or at least from driving low mpg
> > vehicles would come out ahead economically and anyone who really
> > needed to drive to work or drive a truck to work would still be able
> > to afford it.
> Using taxes to make people do what you want is a very slippery slope.
Which is what? Forking over less money to despotic nations for oil?
Bret Cahill
orang...@googlemail.com
Exactly. You have decided that I should not be allowed to do this, so
you would like to impose a tax. So what comes next? If you want me to
stop reading newspapers (to save the trees or whatever) impose a tax.
If you want me to stop buying meat and only eat vegetables, use tax.
If you prefer coke to pepsi, tax coke. You can start to use fines and
taxes to control every aspect of people's lives.
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> > > > increase in federal fuel taxes.
> > > > The overall effect is drivers would be paid to use less fuel.
> > > > Anyone who shifts away from driving or at least from driving low mpg
> > > > vehicles would come out ahead economically and anyone who really
> > > > needed to drive to work or drive a truck to work would still be able
> > > > to afford it.
> > > Using taxes to make people do what you want is a very slippery slope.
>
> > Which is what? �Forking over less money to despotic nations for oil?
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> Exactly. You have decided
I'm not in charge of fiscal policy. The _people_ will have decided.
If you want to continue handing billions over to oil rich despotims
then you need to persuade voters.
. . . .
> So what comes next?
Anything that falls under Art. I Sec. 8.
Next question?
Bret Cahill
orang...@googlemail.com
> > > > > The deal needs to include a revenue neutral IRS rebate to cover the
> > > > > increase in federal fuel taxes.
> > > > > The overall effect is drivers would be paid to use less fuel.
> > > > > Anyone who shifts away from driving or at least from driving low mpg
> > > > > vehicles would come out ahead economically and anyone who really
> > > > > needed to drive to work or drive a truck to work would still be able
> > > > > to afford it.
> > > > Using taxes to make people do what you want is a very slippery slope.
>
> > > Which is what? �Forking over less money to despotic nations for oil?
>
> > > Bret Cahill
>
> > Exactly. You have decided
>
> I'm not in charge of fiscal policy. The _people_ will have decided.
>
a people's tax. good thinking citizen.
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> > > > > > increase in federal fuel taxes.
> > > > > > The overall effect is drivers would be paid to use less fuel.
> > > > > > Anyone who shifts away from driving or at least from driving low mpg
> > > > > > vehicles would come out ahead economically and anyone who really
> > > > > > needed to drive to work or drive a truck to work would still be able
> > > > > > to afford it.
> > > > > Using taxes to make people do what you want is a very slippery slope.
>
> > > > Which is what? �Forking over less money to despotic nations for oil?
>
> > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > Exactly. You have decided
>
> > I'm not in charge of fiscal policy. The _people_ will have decided.
>
> a people's tax.
If you don't like the people changing fiscal policy the proper remedy
is to amend the Constitution so that only Republicons can change it.
. . .
> > If you want to continue handing billions over to oil rich despotims
> > then you need to persuade voters.
>
> > . . . .
>
> > > So what comes next?
>
> > Anything that falls under Art. I Sec. 8.
>
> > Next question?
? ? ?
Bret Cahill
The Trucker
What an utterly ridiculous statement. A redistribution of that which
actually belongs to everyone does not FORCE people to do anything at all.
What people do with the tax refund is up to them. The reclaiming of that
which they were deprived in the first place is merely a "softer" approach
than putting the robbers in jail. Do you also think that "encouraging"
people to conduct themselves within the moral dictates of the society by
putting offenders in jail is a slippery slope?
daestrom
<Burto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ef602b0-d0d7-40a8...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
On May 3, 5:40 pm, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
> HarryNadds wrote:
> > What "more efficient" ways are you referring to? Rail? Ship? Carrier
> > pidgeon? You think long haul trucks are part of the problem?? You
> > willing to put thousands of truck drivers out of a job??
>
> What would make more sense would be to nationalize the railroad right of
> way so that it would be owned and maintained by the government the same
> as the highways, waterways, and airports.
>
> Then- permit investors to go into business with the running gear in an
> open, and competitive free market rather than the regulated system the
> massive rail corporations now have.
>
> Moreover, convert the rails to a new wide track design that could go
> much faster and carry loads wider than a box car. In this case, they
> could piggie back truck trailers or freighter containers side by side on
> flat cars, or use the flat cars to carry your car, at high speed, cross
> country. You could drive on a flatcar at the station, with the driver's
> side facing the front of the train, then drive off at your destination.
Widing the rails isn't really going to be practical. There are literally
thousands of tunnels and millions of bridges both large and small that would
*not* accept wider rolling stock.
And to do as you suggest, it isn't really necessary. 'Trailer-Trains' have
been around for decades and they allow driving tractor trailers right on to
specially designed flat-bed cars that have short ramps that can be lowered
to connect the cars together. Trucks are driven on backward from one end
and can drive the length of the train until reaching the desired flat-car.
This was in the mid 70's. These 'Trailer-Trains' can be off/on loaded with
a minimal of facilities. Just need a ramp that leads up to the right
elevation at the end of a railroad spur.
The more common version now that replaces 'Trailer-Trains' is the
inter-modal container. Standardized containers are off-loaded from ships
and put onto semi-tractor trailers -or- train cars directly. But these
require overhead container-cranes to lift and load the containers (sometimes
referred to as 'sea-vans' IIRC).
daestrom
BretC...@peoplepc.com
S. Constitution they have two options:
1. Amend the constitution so only Repugliars can decide fiscal
policy, or,
2. Call 1-800-FLY-4-LESS and book the next one way flight to
Mogadishu in low tax paradise Somalia.
Bret Cahill
The Trucker
>
> <Burto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8ef602b0-d0d7-40a8...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
> On May 3, 5:40 pm, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
>> HarryNadds wrote:
>> > What "more efficient" ways are you referring to? Rail? Ship? Carrier
>> > pidgeon? You think long haul trucks are part of the problem?? You
>> > willing to put thousands of truck drivers out of a job??
>>
>> What would make more sense would be to nationalize the railroad right of
>> way so that it would be owned and maintained by the government the same
>> as the highways, waterways, and airports.
>>
>> Then- permit investors to go into business with the running gear in an
>> open, and competitive free market rather than the regulated system the
>> massive rail corporations now have.
>>
>> Moreover, convert the rails to a new wide track design that could go
>> much faster and carry loads wider than a box car. In this case, they
>> could piggie back truck trailers or freighter containers side by side on
>> flat cars, or use the flat cars to carry your car, at high speed, cross
>> country. You could drive on a flatcar at the station, with the driver's
>> side facing the front of the train, then drive off at your destination.
>
> Widing the rails isn't really going to be practical. There are literally
> thousands of tunnels and millions of bridges both large and small that would
> *not* accept wider rolling stock.
So the practical solution is to make the trains longer and faster. The
"faster" may include the need for more/different "right of way".
> And to do as you suggest, it isn't really necessary. 'Trailer-Trains' have
> been around for decades and they allow driving tractor trailers right on to
> specially designed flat-bed cars that have short ramps that can be lowered
> to connect the cars together. Trucks are driven on backward from one end
> and can drive the length of the train until reaching the desired flat-car.
> This was in the mid 70's. These 'Trailer-Trains' can be off/on loaded with
> a minimal of facilities. Just need a ramp that leads up to the right
> elevation at the end of a railroad spur.
Actually, latter day 53 foot trailers are built to be lifted onto the flat
cars just like container cargo.
> The more common version now that replaces 'Trailer-Trains' is the
> inter-modal container. Standardized containers are off-loaded from ships
> and put onto semi-tractor trailers -or- train cars directly. But these
> require overhead container-cranes to lift and load the containers (sometimes
> referred to as 'sea-vans' IIRC).
Both exist. But the 53 foot trailers are for palletized cargo and believe
me when I tell you that palletized freight is a lot easier to load and
unload than is floor loaded freight in those containers. So the ship
stuff (from China et al) may be container efficient, but the stuff that
is "Made in America" is more efficiently moved on pallets in 53 foot
trailers. The wheels are really not so expensive as you might think but
the stupidity was in the design of all those containers. They were not
built to handle pallatized cargo.
The bottom line is that the trains will be moving a lot more LONG HAUL
freight and the trucks will be doing a lot more rail-yard to endpoint
stuff. Those "sleepers" on the trucks can also be removed as well as my
dumbbells and my fridge and my lunchbox stove and all my books and stuff.
But driver wages will need to go up so I can afford an apartment. Long
haul truckers are gypsies.
The Ghost In The Machine
<BretC...@peoplepc.com>
wrote
on Sun, 4 May 2008 10:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
<7a5803da-07d3-4773...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>:
>> > > > The deal needs to include a revenue neutral IRS rebate to cover the
>> > > > increase in federal fuel taxes.
>> > > > The overall effect is drivers would be paid to use less fuel.
>> > > > Anyone who shifts away from driving or at least from driving low mpg
>> > > > vehicles would come out ahead economically and anyone who really
>> > > > needed to drive to work or drive a truck to work would still be able
>> > > > to afford it.
>> > > Using taxes to make people do what you want is a very slippery slope.
>>
>>
>> > Bret Cahill
>>
>> Exactly. You have decided
>
> I'm not in charge of fiscal policy. The _people_ will have decided.
And how, precisely, do we decide?
Referendum? Maybe in some states, and look what California's gotten
itself into with such. Gods, what a mess *our* Constitution is. The
Federal version only has, thankfully, 27 Amendments.
Executive? No (delusions of grandeur notwithstanding),
although the Executive does propose a budget every year,
and sometimes it even gets passed verbatim (if the Prez and
both Houses are the same party, as was the case 2001-2006,
but even then the Budget wasn't passed unmodified).
However, Congress holds the power of the purse, and always
has, in theory anyway.
Judicial? Maybe if someone sues. Maybe.
Representative voting? Aye, that's the ticket, and exactly
what we're doing now. Half of our senators are Republican;
half are Democrats. (Give or take maybe two.)
Feet? If we're *really* lucky, we'll exchange our cars
for bicycles or used shoe leather, and stop paying for
gas. Admittedly, there are a number of issues regarding
zoning that may need addressing first. I in particular
am employed at a job 20+ miles distant; fortunately,
there's mass transit (Caltrain).
>
> If you want to continue handing billions over to oil rich despotims
> then you need to persuade voters.
There are problems either way.
>
> . . . .
>
>> So what comes next?
>
> Anything that falls under Art. I Sec. 8.
>
> Next question?
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. The choice of a GNU generation.
Windows. The choice of a bunch of people who like very weird behavior on
a regular basis, random crashes, and "extend, embrace, and extinguish".
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> >> > > > increase in federal fuel taxes.
> >> > > > The overall effect is drivers would be paid to use less fuel.
> >> > > > Anyone who shifts away from driving or at least from driving low mpg
> >> > > > vehicles would come out ahead economically and anyone who really
> >> > > > needed to drive to work or drive a truck to work would still be able
> >> > > > to afford it.
> >> > > Using taxes to make people do what you want is a very slippery slope.
>
> >> > Which is what? ?Forking over less money to despotic nations for oil?
> >> Exactly. You have decided
>
> > I'm not in charge of fiscal policy. �The _people_ will have decided.
>
> And how, precisely, do we decide?
Try Art. 1 Sec. 8 of the U. S. Constitution.
If you congress critter doesn't want a revenue neutral combination of
rebates and fuel tax hikes, vote his ass out in November.
Bret Cahill
orang...@googlemail.com
> On Sun, 04 May 2008 09:16:36 -0700, orangatang1 wrote:
> > On 3 May, 08:11, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
> >> The deal needs to include a revenue neutral IRS rebate to cover the
> >> increase in federal fuel taxes.
>
> >> The overall effect is drivers would be paid to use less fuel.
>
> >> Anyone who shifts away from driving or at least from driving low mpg
> >> vehicles would come out ahead economically and anyone who really
> >> needed to drive to work or drive a truck to work would still be able
> >> to afford it.
>
> >> Bret Cahill
>
> > Using taxes to make people do what you want is a very slippery slope.
>
> What an utterly ridiculous statement. A redistribution of that which
> actually belongs to everyone does not FORCE people to do anything at all.
> What people do with the tax refund is up to them. The reclaiming of that
> which they were deprived in the first place is merely a "softer" approach
> than putting the robbers in jail. Do you also think that "encouraging"
> people to conduct themselves within the moral dictates of the society by
> putting offenders in jail is a slippery slope?
>
I was talking about using taxes to control behavor, not redistribution
of wealth. I don't like the idea of a bunch of do-gooders deciding
what I should and should not do.
I am not a fan of redistribution of wealth either. Sorry, but don't
expect me to like you taking my money away from me and giving it to
someone you feel deserves it more.
> --
> "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
> of society but the people themselves; and
> if we think them not enlightened enough to
> exercise their control with a wholesome
> discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
> them, but to inform their discretion by
> education." - Thomas Jeffersonhttp://GreaterVoice.org/extend- Hide quoted text -
The Trucker
> In sci.econ, BretC...@peoplepc.com
> <BretC...@peoplepc.com>
> wrote
> on Sun, 4 May 2008 10:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
> <7a5803da-07d3-4773...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>:
>>> > > > The deal needs to include a revenue neutral IRS rebate to cover the
>>> > > > increase in federal fuel taxes.
>>> > > > The overall effect is drivers would be paid to use less fuel.
>>> > > > Anyone who shifts away from driving or at least from driving low mpg
>>> > > > vehicles would come out ahead economically and anyone who really
>>> > > > needed to drive to work or drive a truck to work would still be able
>>> > > > to afford it.
>>> > > Using taxes to make people do what you want is a very slippery slope.
>>>
>>> > Which is what? ?Forking over less money to despotic nations for oil?
>>>
>>> > Bret Cahill
>>>
>>> Exactly. You have decided
>>
>> I'm not in charge of fiscal policy. The _people_ will have decided.
>
> And how, precisely, do we decide?
You would do well to actually look at the Constitution and understand that
YOUR House of Representatives is in charge of fiscal policy. I KNOW this
will coma as a shock to you, especially if you are a Republican. So "WE"
decide by putting the right people into OUR House of Representatives.
Many people make the mistake of "The Clinton Tax Increase of 1993" when,
in fact that tax code started in 1990 and was created by the Democratic
Congress. It was Clinton's tax code to the extent that Al Gore cast the
tie breaking vote in the Senate so Clinton could sign it. Fiscal
responsibility is NOT easy.
> Referendum? Maybe in some states, and look what California's gotten
> itself into with such. Gods, what a mess *our* Constitution is. The
> Federal version only has, thankfully, 27 Amendments.
Referendums suck. Whoever has the most money to run ads gets what they
want.
> Executive? No (delusions of grandeur notwithstanding),
> although the Executive does propose a budget every year,
> and sometimes it even gets passed verbatim (if the Prez and
> both Houses are the same party, as was the case 2001-2006,
> but even then the Budget wasn't passed unmodified).
> However, Congress holds the power of the purse, and always
> has, in theory anyway.
Not only Congress. But more specifically the House. The role of the
(P)resident in this deal is that (s)he gets to run her/his mouth while
the "news" people role the tape.
> Judicial? Maybe if someone sues. Maybe.
Nope.... It's the House.
> Representative voting? Aye, that's the ticket, and exactly
> what we're doing now. Half of our senators are Republican;
> half are Democrats. (Give or take maybe two.)
That is the ticket but the Senate is a piece of crap and it can't be
changed without rewriting the whole damned Constitution. The most
rational means by which we can control our government is by
dramatically expanding the membership of the House:
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
> Feet? If we're *really* lucky, we'll exchange our cars
> for bicycles or used shoe leather, and stop paying for
> gas. Admittedly, there are a number of issues regarding
> zoning that may need addressing first. I in particular
> am employed at a job 20+ miles distant; fortunately,
> there's mass transit (Caltrain).
>
>>
>> If you want to continue handing billions over to oil rich despotims
>> then you need to persuade voters.
>
> There are problems either way.
CHOOSE! You can have a true "republican form of government", or you can
have the latter day Republican form of empire, complete with an emperor.
>>
>> . . . .
>>
>>> So what comes next?
>>
>> Anything that falls under Art. I Sec. 8.
>>
>> Next question?
>>
>>
>> Bret Cahill
Yes... We will note that the executive branch has _NO_ legislative role
whatsoever. Believe it, or not!
BretC...@peoplepc.com
If you don't like the people deciding fiscal policy under Art. 1, Sec.
8 of the U. S. Const. then you have two options:
1. Amend the U. S. Constitution so that you become dictator and you
control fiscal policy.
2. Call 1-800-FLY-4-LESS and book the nexy one way flight to
Mogadishu in low tax haven Somalia.
Forbes once ran an excellent article on "taxpatriation." I suggest
you read it.
Bret Cahill
ayatollah obama
> HarryNadds wrote:
> > What "more efficient" ways are you referring to? Rail? Ship? Carrier
> > pidgeon? You think long haul trucks are part of the problem?? You
> > willing to put thousands of truck drivers out of a job??
>
> What would make more sense would be to nationalize the railroad right of
> way so that it would be owned and maintained by the government the same
> as the highways, waterways, and airports.
>
> Then- permit investors to go into business with the running gear in an
> open, and competitive free market rather than the regulated system the
> massive rail corporations now have.
>
> Moreover, convert the rails to a new wide track design that could go
> much faster and carry loads wider than a box car. In this case, they
> could piggie back truck trailers or freighter containers side by side on
> flat cars, or use the flat cars to carry your car, at high speed, cross
> country. You could drive on a flatcar at the station, with the driver's
> side facing the front of the train, then drive off at your destination.
>
> power the engine with coal, with high efficiency steam turbines and
> highly effective emission control, which would reduce air pollution as
> well as dramatically reduce the need for oil imports.
You f'n DemonCraps fuck everthing up you touch. Go fix the *lessor*
society first before fucking everything else up!
Nationalize this, nationalize that and pretty soon, we are Moscow-
west.
-------
DemonCraps.... Making the lives of poor people even more miserable!
DemonCraps.... Save a planet, Starve a Nation
ayatollah obama
> On Sat, 03 May 2008 18:31:00 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In sci.econ, The Trucker
> > <mik...@verizon.net>
> > wrote
> > on Sat, 03 May 2008 15:09:44 -0700
> > <pan.2008.05.03.22.09.41.131...@verizon.net>:
> >> On Sat, 03 May 2008 12:17:22 -0700, HarryNadds wrote:
>
> >>> On May 3, 10:52 am, The Trucker <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 03 May 2008 08:11:40 -0700, BretCahill wrote:
> >>>> > increase in federal fuel taxes.
>
> >>>> > The overall effect is drivers would be paid to use less fuel.
>
> >>>> decrease in overall taxation is a different matter.
>
> >>>> > vehicles would come out ahead economically and anyone who really
> >>>> > needed to drive to work or drive a truck to work would still be able
> >>>> > to afford it.
>
> >>>> (long haul) for a living is going to lose no matter what. There are more
> >>>> fuel efficient ways to deliver freight over long distances and the people
> >>>> who ship the commodities will be discovering these methods. That is
> >>>> economic reality and there is nothing that should be done about it but
> >>>> perhaps to increase the progressive nature of the tax system and
> >>>> redistribute benefits at the bottom where people are being put our of work
> >>>> due to the increasing efficiencies. -- Share the pain -- This is not the
> >>>> fault of the drivers and many of these efficiency improvements should have
> >>>> already been done. The Bush solution is to use Mexican nationals as
> >>>> drivers and pay them half of what is being paid to American nationals.
> >>>> That allows more to be spent on fuel (money in the pocket of Bush and his
> >>>> pals) due to the savings in wages. More "profit" and less wages. How
> >>>> very Republican.
>
> >>>> "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
> >>>> of society but the people themselves; and
> >>>> if we think them not enlightened enough to
> >>>> exercise their control with a wholesome
> >>>> discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
> >>>> them, but to inform their discretion by
> >>>> education." - Thomas Jeffersonhttp://GreaterVoice.org/extend
>
> >>> pidgeon?
>
> >> demands a more efficient means of delivery.
>
> >>> You think long haul trucks are part of the problem??
>
> >> the rail.
>
> >>> You
> >>> willing to put thousands of truck drivers out of a job??
>
> >> rail-yard and the manufacturer and the regional warehouse or Wall-Mart
> >> style retail center. The long haulers will be short haulers. They will go
> >> home at night as opposed to sleeping in a truck. They will have wives and
> >> kids like normal people. It will just be different.
>
> > I highly doubt that. If X number of truckers are doing
> > long-haul 12-hour runs (give or take), and the rail
> > replaces these runs with, say, short-haul 30-minute runs, the
> > arithmetic suggests that we'd only need X/24 the number
> > of truckers, all other things being the same, since each
> > trucker could theoretically make 24 runs in the same time
> > he made 1 before the switchover.
>
> Wrong scale and wrong definition of "long haul". A decent length load for
> me was 1500 miles and I much preferred 2000 miles. You can drive 11 hrs a
> day or break the hours of service rules. Most drivers will run 8 or 9
> hours a day. You average about 60mph and so you you run about 500 miles.
> It takes 3 days for a 1500 miler and typically it will take 4 days for the
> 2000. The point is that there is more work involved in the train
> stuff. You load the trailer and instead of delivering it you take it to
> the rail yard and put it on the train. The same thing happens on the
> other end as the driver there has to get it from the rail yard and deliver
> it. There is twice as much actual work and a lot less driving.
>
> > In practice, there's issues such as breaks involved, but
> > I certainly don't see *more* employment for drivers here.
> > ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**
>
> mile. The time to load and unload and screw around in city traffic is all
> overhead to me. Local truckers get paid by the hour and sit at the
> loading docks waiting to get the truck loaded and they don't mind. I
> simply get angry about it. No long haul no ME. But fuel costs too much
> and everyone is going inter-modal.
>
> --
> "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
> of society but the people themselves; and
> if we think them not enlightened enough to
> exercise their control with a wholesome
> discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
> them, but to inform their discretion by
>
> - Show quoted text -
Then Nationalize the trucking industry. You get paid by the hour and
we can get illegals in here to your job for half the price.!
Oh, wait.... don't outsource MY job! Nationalize Exxon, they are the
*evil* ones.
You are still a marxist trucker!
ayatollah obama
THe *lessor* society. The imprisonment of an entire class of people
who were made wards of the state. They owe their money to the left,
the DemonCraps!
orang...@googlemail.com
> I just tell rightards that if they don't like Art. 1 Sec. 8 of the U.
> S. Constitution they have two options:
>
> 1. Amend the constitution so only Repugliars can decide fiscal
> policy, or,
Like this amendment -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
>
> 2. Call 1-800-FLY-4-LESS and book the next one way flight to
> Mogadishu in low tax paradise Somalia.
>
> Bret Cahill
Do I understand you correctly? you seem to think it is good that
governments take money from its' citizens by force. If a carpenter
makes four chairs you think it is a good idea for the government to
take two, for example. anyone who disagrees with you should leave
america, as supporting low taxes is un-american.
--------------------------------
"..for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man
standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." -
churchill
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> Whoever has the most money to run ads gets what they
> want.
California certainly screwed itself with Prop. 13, a perverse as well
as regressive tax policy, and the regressive governator.
Anyway, referenda v representative control is off topic to a fuel tax.
It was just some too clever by half rightards looking for a way out of
the fuel tax.
Bret Cahill
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> governments take money from its' citizens by force.
I don't see anyone holding a gun to anyone's head forcing him to live
in the collectively acquired collectively defended territory of the U.
S. and pay taxes.
You can leave anytime. Just call 1-800-FLY-4-LESS and book the next
one way flight to Mogadishu in low tax heaven Somalia.
_Forbes_ once ran an excellent article on taxpatriation. It's
suggested reading.
Bret Cahill
Burto...@gmail.com
> The Trucker wrote:
> > On Sat, 03 May 2008 08:11:40 -0700, BretCahill wrote:
>
> >> The deal needs to include a revenue neutral IRS rebate to cover the
> >> increase in federal fuel taxes.
>
> >> The overall effect is drivers would be paid to use less fuel.
>
> > That is correct. Revenue neutrality is the key to this. The increase or
> > decrease in overall taxation is a different matter.
>
> >> Anyone who shifts away from driving or at least from driving low mpg
> >> vehicles would come out ahead economically and anyone who really
> >> needed to drive to work or drive a truck to work would still be able
> >> to afford it.
>
> > That is true in the most cases. But a person that actually drives a truck
> > (long haul) for a living is going to lose no matter what.
>
> companies, we could provide a "windfall tax credit" to such small
> businesses to compensate them for the declining purchasing power of the
> dollar. That is, if the dollar declines 20%, then the price of their
> fuel has risen 20% in dollars. That should be deductible or credited as
> a business expense.
>
> After all, it's not THEIR fault that the dollar is declining. That's
> due to deliberate Federal Reserve policy. Why should private business
> be penalized?
>
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Funny how all you kooks think alike. You want giveaways of taxpayer
money for everything from a fleabitten dog to health care. You people
ever stop and think where this "tax" money comes from??
Burto...@gmail.com
> On Sat, 03 May 2008 19:47:35 -0700, BurtonUrny wrote:
> > It's what the left always wants.
>
> Define 'the left' with an concrete example please.
Stalin.
Burto...@gmail.com
If I stick my head in the sand it will be nested right beside yours.
Hello.
Burto...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
TAXES,TAXES,TAXES,TAXES,TAXES,TAXES,TAXES,TAXES !!!!!! CLICK-
TAXES,TAXES,TAXES !!!!!! CLICK-TAXES,TAXES,TAXES !!! CLICK. You kooks
have a one track mind. Do the words "cut spending" ever cross your
minds?? What does Piglosi and her room full of whores plan to do about
the price of oil, gas and the price of food?? Short term, not 20 years
down the road. I bet it includes raising taxes on the producers as one
"solution".
Burto...@gmail.com
It's what liberals do.It's in their blood. Liberalism is a mental
disorder.
Burto...@gmail.com
Look at what they did to make people stop smoking. Raise the taxes on
cigarettes. They don't want people to stop smoking because they like
squandering the tax revenue but it helps them sleep better at night.
Look what happened when the kooks came up with the so called "luxury
tax"? Supposed to tax only the wealthy. It wound up putting the yacht,
private aircraft, luxury car manufacturers etc. damned near out of
business costing jobs and tax revenue.
Burto...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <BurtonU...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Please don't hit a liberal with facts. Their eyeballs roll back in
their heads and they go into having convulsions. Please stay with the
George Soros/MOVEON.org talking points of the day.
Burto...@gmail.com
Oh no, can't do that. We need a liberal majority in congress and a
leftist/socialist President. Just think, another Jimmuh Cottuh Utopia.
(snicker).
Burto...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
SSSSSHHHHH !!! Top secret,eyes only: That's what they want !! Now,
keep it to yourself till after November then the cat' out of the bag.
Burto...@gmail.com
> On 4 May, 11:06, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
>
> > I just tell rightards that if they don't like Art. 1 Sec. 8 of the U.
> > S. Constitution they have two options:
>
> > 1. Amend the constitution so only Repugliars can decide fiscal
> > policy, or,
>
> Like this amendment -
>
>
>
>
> > 2. Call 1-800-FLY-4-LESS and book the next one way flight to
> > Mogadishu in low tax paradise Somalia.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> Do I understand you correctly? you seem to think it is good that
> governments take money from its' citizens by force. If a carpenter
> makes four chairs you think it is a good idea for the government to
> take two, for example. anyone who disagrees with you should leave
> america, as supporting low taxes is un-american.
>
> --------------------------------
>
> "..for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man
> standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." -
> churchill
Kinda' like the oil companies investing billions in R&D, exploration,
drilling, infrastructure, refineries etc.and the gubmint confiscating
billions in taxes and fees when the gubmint has'nt invested a fucking
dime. Ya' just gotta love it.
The Trucker
>
> TAXES,TAXES,TAXES,TAXES,TAXES,TAXES,TAXES,TAXES !!!!!! CLICK-
> TAXES,TAXES,TAXES !!!!!! CLICK-TAXES,TAXES,TAXES !!! CLICK. You kooks
> have a one track mind. Do the words "cut spending" ever cross your
> minds??
Sure. Last time I checked in 2000 military spending was about 60% of the
discretionary budget and that was BEFORE the latest Republican
imperialism. If one seeks to cut spending it seems rather silly to
concentrate on the smaller parts of the budget and whine over the school
lunch program.
> What does Piglosi and her room full of whores plan to do about
> the price of oil, gas and the price of food?? Short term, not 20 years
> down the road. I bet it includes raising taxes on the producers as one
> "solution".
If the "stimulus" is any indication then the Democratic plan would seem to
be to simply put money in the hands of working people as opposed to
defense contractors and big oil, while at the same time doing away with
tax breaks for the big boys and, perhaps, creating a windfall profits tax
on the oil companies to return some fiscal balance to the budget.
And BTW, moron. Oil is not created by oil companies and a tax on excess
profits from oil is a tax on economic rent. Levying a 50% surtax on oil
company profits would not slow the delivery of oil one iota. Nor would it
affect the current price.
Day Brown
drive onto that is wide enuf for your car. Then when you get to the
station, just pull on ahead to drive off the other side.
And as far as high speed goes, its a lot more than just tunnels. Be a
good idea to elevate the tracks so you dont have road crossing crashes
at 200 mph. However, you dont need to start the system where the terrain
and population density make it hard, but start on the high plains
running for hundreds of miles East over flat mostly empty farmland.
the result would be that the drivers and truckers could pull on east of
Denver, then *sleep* for the next several hours while the train moves them.
Granted that there are infrastructure costs, but we have these already
with heavy trucks tearing up the freeways. Get that weight running on
Steel rails, and when *YOU* drive on the freeway, it wont have truck
traffic, it'll be gonzo safer, and you wont be held up with either pot
holes or the repair crews.
Is is by definition "liberal" to be innovative? Have you ever driven
coast to coast? Have any idea how much money a *BUSINESS* could make by
moving your car at high speed in the direction you want to go while you
sleep, rather than having it sit in a rest area? WTF?
Les Cargill
>
> Nationalize this, nationalize that and pretty soon, we are Moscow-
> west.
> -------
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=23031761
--
Les Cargill
Eat the rich
>
> I'm not always as clear as I hope. But you need a flat car that you can
> drive onto that is wide enuf for your car. Then when you get to the
> station, just pull on ahead to drive off the other side.
>
> And as far as high speed goes, its a lot more than just tunnels. Be a
> good idea to elevate the tracks so you dont have road crossing crashes
> at 200 mph. However, you dont need to start the system where the terrain
> and population density make it hard, but start on the high plains
> running for hundreds of miles East over flat mostly empty farmland.
>
> the result would be that the drivers and truckers could pull on east of
> Denver, then *sleep* for the next several hours while the train moves them.
>
> Granted that there are infrastructure costs, but we have these already
> with heavy trucks tearing up the freeways. Get that weight running on
> Steel rails, and when *YOU* drive on the freeway, it wont have truck
> traffic, it'll be gonzo safer, and you wont be held up with either pot
> holes or the repair crews.
>
> Is is by definition "liberal" to be innovative? Have you ever driven
> coast to coast? Have any idea how much money a *BUSINESS* could make by
> moving your car at high speed in the direction you want to go while you
> sleep, rather than having it sit in a rest area? WTF?
Very interesting idea.
I've been trying to find rates for transport by rail. I'm getting
rates of 2.50 to 8.90 per hundred pounds for a two hundred mile trip.
At a rate of $2.50, with a car weighing around 2500 lbs, it would cost
about 65 dollars. Not bad.
Burto...@gmail.com
> On Sun, 04 May 2008 13:40:32 -0700, BurtonUrny puked forth:
>
>
>
> > TAXES,TAXES,TAXES,TAXES,TAXES,TAXES,TAXES,TAXES !!!!!! CLICK-
> > TAXES,TAXES,TAXES !!!!!! CLICK-TAXES,TAXES,TAXES !!! CLICK. You kooks
> > have a one track mind. Do the words "cut spending" ever cross your
> > minds??
>
> Sure. Last time I checked in 2000 military spending was about 60% of the
> discretionary budget and that was BEFORE the latest Republican
> imperialism. If one seeks to cut spending it seems rather silly to
> concentrate on the smaller parts of the budget and whine over the school
> lunch program.
>
they were in office?
> > What does Piglosi and her room full of whores plan to do about
> > the price of oil, gas and the price of food?? Short term, not 20 years
> > down the road. I bet it includes raising taxes on the producers as one
> > "solution".
>
> If the "stimulus" is any indication then the Democratic plan would seem to
> be to simply put money in the hands of working people as opposed to
> defense contractors and big oil, while at the same time doing away with
> tax breaks for the big boys and, perhaps, creating a windfall profits tax
> on the oil companies to return some fiscal balance to the budget.
>
In other words slash the military (again) and give the money to lazy
non-producing slackers like you?
> And BTW, moron. Oil is not created by oil companies and a tax on excess
> profits from oil is a tax on economic rent. Levying a 50% surtax on oil
> company profits would not slow the delivery of oil one iota. Nor would it
> affect the current price.
>
> --
If you don't like the way oil companies do business then go to the
bank, borrow about 300 billion and start drilling, MORON! Btw, before
you start confiscating Exxon's profits you might want to consult with
their stockholders. You start talking about confiscating Exxon's money
it'll make a few hundred thousand people with 401Ks and the stock
dividends they use to buy their groceries REAL nervous. Ya' might want
to think that over, YOU DUMB FUCKER !!
Burto...@gmail.com
> daestrom wrote:
>
> > <BurtonU...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, so much for the truckstops, roadside cafes and motels. FUCK EM'
THEY MAKE TOO MUCH MONEY ANYHOW !!!!
Burto...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Shame on you if you get hungry or need to take a whizz. Hey,I just had
an idea. Not only do you have people driving their cars on flatcars
I've got a flatcar with a Burger King and a shithouse !!
SSSHHHHAAAZZZZAAAAMMMM !!!!
Burto...@gmail.com
> >> The deal needs to include a revenue neutral IRS rebate to cover the
> >> increase in federal fuel taxes.
>
> >> The overall effect is drivers would be paid to use less fuel.
>
> >> Anyone who shifts away from driving or at least from driving low mpg
> >> vehicles would come out ahead economically and anyone who really
> >> needed to drive to work or drive a truck to work would still be able
> >> to afford it.
>
>
> > There we go.The typical moonbat response. Mandate that the american
> > people make drastic lifestyle changes instead of doing the right thing
> > and drilling for oil and building refineries.Will your mandate include
> > the elites in Hollywood and the limousine liberals in Washington??
> > Did'nt think so.
>
> You why we have gridlock in Washington. Conservatives like you won't
> accept ANY conservation policies (didn't you know the words
> "conservative" and "conserve" had the same root). While liberals like
> goes on.
>
> I would like to lock the both of you in a room and insist you compromise
> on a bipartisan policy you both can sign up to. That means you must
> accept some conservation, and the liberals must accept some oil production.
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
Works for me because I know the greenpeace kooks won't be packing heat
but I will !! That meeting won't last long.
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> > > >> > > > increase in federal fuel taxes.
> > > >> > > > The overall effect is drivers would be paid to use less fuel.
> > > >> > > > Anyone who shifts away from driving or at least from driving low mpg
> > > >> > > > vehicles would come out ahead economically and anyone who really
> > > >> > > > needed to drive to work or drive a truck to work would still be able
> > > >> > > > to afford it.
> > > >> > > Using taxes to make people do what you want is a very slippery slope.
>
> > > >> > Which is what? ?Forking over less money to despotic nations for oil?
> > > >> Exactly. You have decided
>
> > > > I'm not in charge of fiscal policy. �The _people_ will have decided.
>
> > > And how, precisely, do we decide?
>
> > Try Art. 1 Sec. 8 of the U. S. Constitution.
>
> > If you congress critter doesn't want a revenue neutral combination of
> > rebates and fuel tax hikes, vote his ass out in November.
> Oh no, can't do that.
Why not? Have we already voted out all the Repugliars?
Bret Cahill
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> > > accept ANY conservation policies (didn't you know the words
> > > "conservative" and "conserve" had the same root). �While liberals like
> > > Greenpeace won't accept any additional oil drilling. �
>
> > Oil is traded on the $12 billion/day world market where _demand_ is
> > increasing much faster than anything that could be supplied by
> > additional drilling so spiraling fuel costs will continue if you drill
> > ANWR, Gulf-Florida and every other place on earth.
>
> > Sticking your head into the sand on the magnitude of the demand curve
> > ain't gonna reduce or even slow the increase in fuel prices.
>
> > What part of "it's over" do rightards _not_ understand?
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> If I stick my head in the sand
"If?"
? ? ?
Yer head is _already in_ the sand.
Bret Cahill
Les Cargill
Amtrak offers "Auto train" service now.
http://on-track-on-line.com/autotrain-tips.shtml
> Granted that there are infrastructure costs, but we have these already
> with heavy trucks tearing up the freeways. Get that weight running on
> Steel rails, and when *YOU* drive on the freeway, it wont have truck
> traffic, it'll be gonzo safer, and you wont be held up with either pot
> holes or the repair crews.
>
> Is is by definition "liberal" to be innovative? Have you ever driven
> coast to coast? Have any idea how much money a *BUSINESS* could make by
> moving your car at high speed in the direction you want to go while you
> sleep, rather than having it sit in a rest area? WTF?
--
Les Cargill
ayatollah obama
You never cease to amaze me just how stupid you are. I was talking to
a friend of mine about ANWR, They are developing part of it at this
point. To Develop the Federal part, it will cost $25 billion to
develop the infrastructure and 12 years. Longer with all the lawsuits
the green weenies will file. During this time, The DemonCraps plan on
taxing them for estimated revenues that they *may* realize in 12
years.
You DemonCraps are so fucked up.
You may have to go get the chicoms to develop it.
Day Brown
> It's what liberals do.It's in their blood. Liberalism is a mental
> disorder.
is a mental disorder, commonly known as "neurosis".
The Trucker
> On May 4, 4:00 pm, The Trucker <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 May 2008 13:40:32 -0700, BurtonUrny puked forth:
>>
>>
>>
>> > TAXES,TAXES,TAXES,TAXES,TAXES,TAXES,TAXES,TAXES !!!!!! CLICK-
>> > TAXES,TAXES,TAXES !!!!!! CLICK-TAXES,TAXES,TAXES !!! CLICK. You kooks
>> > have a one track mind. Do the words "cut spending" ever cross your
>> > minds??
>>
>> Sure. Last time I checked in 2000 military spending was about 60% of the
>> discretionary budget and that was BEFORE the latest Republican
>> imperialism. If one seeks to cut spending it seems rather silly to
>> concentrate on the smaller parts of the budget and whine over the school
>> lunch program.
>>
> Wanna check how much Clinton(s) slashed the military the 8 years
> they were in office?
Why would I do that?
>> > What does Piglosi and her room full of whores plan to do about
>> > the price of oil, gas and the price of food?? Short term, not 20 years
>> > down the road. I bet it includes raising taxes on the producers as one
>> > "solution".
>>
>> If the "stimulus" is any indication then the Democratic plan would seem to
>> be to simply put money in the hands of working people as opposed to
>> defense contractors and big oil, while at the same time doing away with
>> tax breaks for the big boys and, perhaps, creating a windfall profits tax
>> on the oil companies to return some fiscal balance to the budget.
>>
>
> In other words slash the military (again) and give the money to lazy
> non-producing slackers like you?
You suggested a spending cut and I suggest cutting where the most spending
is.
>> And BTW, moron. Oil is not created by oil companies and a tax on excess
>> profits from oil is a tax on economic rent. Levying a 50% surtax on oil
>> company profits would not slow the delivery of oil one iota. Nor would it
>> affect the current price.
>>
>> --
> If you don't like the way oil companies do business then go to the
> bank, borrow about 300 billion and start drilling, MORON! Btw, before
> you start confiscating Exxon's profits you might want to consult with
> their stockholders. You start talking about confiscating Exxon's money
> it'll make a few hundred thousand people with 401Ks and the stock
> dividends they use to buy their groceries REAL nervous. Ya' might want
> to think that over, YOU DUMB FUCKER !!
Gee... I'm terrified.
--
ayatollah obama
>
> - Show quoted text -
You win fuckhead... HR 2421 seizes control of water rights in the
U.S., oil and other mineral rights will follow shortly.
Burto...@gmail.com
Why not start with the useless "war on poverty" where we've wasted
over 6 trillion dollars since Johnson enacted that fiasco? Get you
slackers off your lazy asses and do the work the illegals are doing.
> >> And BTW, moron. Oil is not created by oil companies and a tax on excess
> >> profits from oil is a tax on economic rent. Levying a 50% surtax on oil
> >> company profits would not slow the delivery of oil one iota. Nor would it
> >> affect the current price.
>
> >> --
> > If you don't like the way oil companies do business then go to the
> > bank, borrow about 300 billion and start drilling, MORON! Btw, before
> > you start confiscating Exxon's profits you might want to consult with
> > their stockholders. You start talking about confiscating Exxon's money
> > it'll make a few hundred thousand people with 401Ks and the stock
> > dividends they use to buy their groceries REAL nervous. Ya' might want
> > to think that over, YOU DUMB FUCKER !!
>
> Gee... I'm terrified.
I doubt it because every dime you have extra I'm sure goes up your
nose.
> --
> "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
> of society but the people themselves; and
> if we think them not enlightened enough to
> exercise their control with a wholesome
> discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
> them, but to inform their discretion by
> education." - Thomas Jeffersonhttp://GreaterVoice.org/extend- Hide quoted text -
The Trucker
Last I looked the entire "poverty" budget took less than 5%. That
included Aid to Dependent Children, Workfare, School lunches, and all the
rest. So eliminating the whole business isn't going to "reduce spending"
a whole hellova lot. These percentages , as I said, were back BEFORE the
latest Republican Pig Prancing. The wasted dough in the middle east is
more than 15% of the discretionary budget. Seems simple enough when you
actually look at it. If you want to cut spending then this would be the
place to do it. The alternative, of course, is to have a special tax that
is assessed on all Republicans that believe that the conflict and the
occupation is protecting their coward butts form the camel jockeys. As for
me: I say, "Ride yer camels on over here and I'll kick yer ass. So long
as you stay on your side of the Atlantic I could care less". The proper
education of the Islamic people is to assure them that MAD is not just a
campaign slogan.
>> >> And BTW, moron. Oil is not created by oil companies and a tax on excess
>> >> profits from oil is a tax on economic rent. Levying a 50% surtax on oil
>> >> company profits would not slow the delivery of oil one iota. Nor would it
>> >> affect the current price.
>>
>> >> --
>> > If you don't like the way oil companies do business then go to the
>> > bank, borrow about 300 billion and start drilling, MORON! Btw, before
>> > you start confiscating Exxon's profits you might want to consult with
>> > their stockholders. You start talking about confiscating Exxon's money
>> > it'll make a few hundred thousand people with 401Ks and the stock
>> > dividends they use to buy their groceries REAL nervous. Ya' might want
>> > to think that over, YOU DUMB FUCKER !!
>>
>> Gee... I'm terrified.
>
>
> I doubt it because every dime you have extra I'm sure goes up your
> nose.
>> - Show quoted text -
Burto...@gmail.com
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Only to liberal is $6 trillion+ wasted on buying votes not a waste.
Classic example why you kooks can't be trusted to run our government.
Perhaps you can go into detail explaining to us "repugs" what you
liberals plan to do about the cost of gasoline,oil and food. I dont
mean some pie in the sky utopian plan that'll take 30 years to
implement. I'm talking about NOW!! Try and do this without using the
words "tax increase" and "Bush". Betcha' can't do it.
Burto...@gmail.com
You seem to forget. They don't stay on "their side of the Atlantic"
anymore. Were you born after the first attack on the WTC? Last time I
checked NYC was still on this side of the pond.Why is it so hard for
you kooks to understand? The radical Jihadists want to kill ALL
infidels,including a bleeding leftist kook like you.
> education." - Thomas Jeffersonhttp://GreaterVoice.org/extend- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
Day Brown
> On May 3, 5:40 pm, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
>> HarryNadds wrote:
>>> What "more efficient" ways are you referring to? Rail? Ship? Carrier
>>> pidgeon? You think long haul trucks are part of the problem?? You
>>> willing to put thousands of truck drivers out of a job??
>> What would make more sense would be to nationalize the railroad right of
>> way so that it would be owned and maintained by the government the same
>> as the highways, waterways, and airports.
>>
>> Then- permit investors to go into business with the running gear in an
>> open, and competitive free market rather than the regulated system the
>> massive rail corporations now have.
>>
>> Moreover, convert the rails to a new wide track design that could go
>> much faster and carry loads wider than a box car. In this case, they
>> could piggie back truck trailers or freighter containers side by side on
>> flat cars, or use the flat cars to carry your car, at high speed, cross
>> country. You could drive on a flatcar at the station, with the driver's
>> side facing the front of the train, then drive off at your destination.
>>
>> power the engine with coal, with high efficiency steam turbines and
>> highly effective emission control, which would reduce air pollution as
>> well as dramatically reduce the need for oil imports.
>
> things the government does well.
Read more carefully. This is NOT nationalized rail. Only nationalized
right of way like the interstate highways, waterways, and airports. Au
contraire, the monopolistic grip the large and obsolete railroad
companies have on the system would be broken.
You and/or a group of investors could invest in your own sidings &
switchyards and engines & rolling stock, and run them from there on any
railroad right of way the same as you can drive a truck fleet on any
interstate.
Without having to front the money for the right of way, entrepreneurs
with more realistic labor and management costs and free to innovate in
terms of scheduling and rolling stock would generate *PROFITS*.
Day Brown
>> the result would be that the drivers and truckers could pull on east
>> of Denver, then *sleep* for the next several hours while the train
>> moves them.
>>
>
> Amtrak offers "Auto train" service now.
>
> http://on-track-on-line.com/autotrain-tips.shtml
acceptance, you need flatcars that are wide enuf to drive on from one
side, then drive off from the other. people dont like waiting in line
for a car to be unloaded.
And, if the flat cars had garage doors on each side and a roof, then
owners could either ride in their car, or while enroute, get out and go
to passenger cars for dinner, a drink, or a piss.
Finally, what will really make money for investors is if it is high
speed. Folks will want to get on at sundown in the snowbelt, and off at
sunrise on the gulf coast.
Economically, rather than paying for the heat for seniors in northern
homes during winter, or AC for them in the south during summer, it'd be
cheaper to ship their asses to live in FEMA trailers during that part of
the year when utility costs would be high. Mite even ship the trailers.
For which, again, you need wide track flat cars.
Not that this idea is going to go anywhere mind you. Nobody in the
political elite with the power to do anything reads what we post.
Day Brown
> You f'n DemonCraps fuck everthing up you touch. Go fix the *lessor*
> society first before fucking everything else up!
> Nationalize this, nationalize that and pretty soon, we are Moscow-
> west.
the railroads, but au contraire, breaking up the cartel that now
controls them thru their ownership of the right of way so that more
innovative entrepreneurs could develop more profitable ways to use it.
We are talking about the right of way, not the railroad. The
corporations only got the land from the government anyway, they did not
buy it on the open real estate market, so that which gave, can take away.
Moreover, I'm writing about a new technology to make more efficient use
of that right of way. Like elevating the trains so there are no more
grade crossings so that high speed schedules would not be held up by
dumb fucks who cant see a train coming. Getting hit at 200 mph would be
a lot more messy as well. Cow catchers would not cut it.
The old trains can keep on running where they are now. Consider an el
that could carry your car from a home in the suburbs, *OVER* traffic
jams and you could drive off the flat car within a mile of your high
rise office. At even just 100 mph, your commute would be just 10
minutes. There some problem with Capitalist investors being given the
opportunity to set it up?
All that is required is the same powers of eminent domain that created
the railroad right of way in the first place. Since this is done for the
benefit of investors, what makes you think it is "nationalization"? You
do think do you not?
Les Cargill
> Les Cargill wrote:
>>> the result would be that the drivers and truckers could pull on east
>>> of Denver, then *sleep* for the next several hours while the train
>>> moves them.
>>>
>>
>> Amtrak offers "Auto train" service now.
>>
>> http://on-track-on-line.com/autotrain-tips.shtml
> Thanx Les. Which solves the problem Burton had.
Only from Sanford, Fl to Virginia :)
>But for maximum
> acceptance, you need flatcars that are wide enuf to drive on from one
> side, then drive off from the other. people dont like waiting in line
> for a car to be unloaded.
>
Depends on how much time and what price. If the destination
is simple enough, the car owners could have the car brought to
them later, with "airport buses" taking them to the actual
destination, to check in, whatnot.
> And, if the flat cars had garage doors on each side and a roof, then
> owners could either ride in their car, or while enroute, get out and go
> to passenger cars for dinner, a drink, or a piss.
>
I think decoupling passengers from autos makes more sense. But
actual onload/offload labor might follow car architecture.
But depending on how often people travel, it might make sense to
simply pool cars, moving them as-needed along the line.
> Finally, what will really make money for investors is if it is high
> speed. Folks will want to get on at sundown in the snowbelt, and off at
> sunrise on the gulf coast.
>
It's not clear to me that trying to compete with air travel
infrastructure makes sense. Laying track is less expensive
than it used to be, but even shipping by air looks
to be a wash with ground, almost - for small enough things.
Right now, we just subsidize heck outta airlines. It's *a*
way.
> Economically, rather than paying for the heat for seniors in northern
> homes during winter, or AC for them in the south during summer, it'd be
> cheaper to ship their asses to live in FEMA trailers during that part of
> the year when utility costs would be high. Mite even ship the trailers.
> For which, again, you need wide track flat cars.
>
I think that is exactly what we will see as the Baby Boomers
retire. They'll likely be better than FEMA trailers, but expecially
the Gulf Coast could support a rather large set of high end trailer
parks. The Feds could subsidize the developers, ala Section 8, as
a means to keep SS increases down.
Barefoot Bay is such a place:
http://www.barefootbay.net/patwebb/community%20of%20barefoot%20bay.htm
I am assuming the Katrina event is a very severe outlier. I would
be willing to bet that it is, but it's not that hard to 'cane proof
those model trailer homes. The big engineering challenge would be storm
surge.
> Not that this idea is going to go anywhere mind you. Nobody in the
> political elite with the power to do anything reads what we post.
That's for sure.
--
Les Cargill
ayatollah obama
> Last I looked the entire "poverty" budget took less than 5%. That
> included Aid to Dependent Children, Workfare, School lunches, and all the
> rest. So eliminating the whole business isn't going to "reduce spending"
> a whole hellova lot. These percentages , as I said, were back BEFORE the
> latest Republican Pig Prancing. The wasted dough in the middle east is
> more than 15% of the discretionary budget. Seems simple enough when you
> actually look at it. If you want to cut spending then this would be the
> place to do it. The alternative, of course, is to have a special tax that
> is assessed on all Republicans that believe that the conflict and the
> occupation is protecting their coward butts form the camel jockeys. As for
> me: I say, "Ride yer camels on over here and I'll kick yer ass. So long
> as you stay on your side of the Atlantic I could care less". The proper
> education of the Islamic people is to assure them that MAD is not just a
> campaign slogan.
You are wrong.... again. Why am I *not* surprised.
You say the entitlement programs are 5% of the budget of $2.9
trillion, which would be $145 billion... add another $500 billion to
that and you will be close.
The total Defense budget is $700 billion, which includes the actual
DOD budget of $480 billion, plus the War on Terror and Homeland
Security.... or 24% of the budget.
When you socialist come to power, expect to add $1 trillion to the
budget, for starters, to pay for National Healthcare.
The Trucker
I can only give you my own stuff. I have no idea what the vast left wing
conspiracy (who's intent is to sap _YOUR_ vital fluids) might be.
It starts with a REVENUE NEUTRAL windfall profits tax on oil as long as
the price of oil remains above some threshold (say $90/b). The percantage
of this "surtax/excise-rax" is to be determined, but ALL of the revenue
collected is to be placed right back into the economy as a "stimulus".
That is the only one I will put forth. It is not a "tax-increase" because
it is revenue neutral.
The Trucker
They, as a nation or a cult, have not invaded the USA or attempted to
supplant the US government or the Constitution. Terrorism is s crime. And
the proper response to criminal behavior is the hunt down the criminals
and do what justice demands. Your pal Bush failed miserably and chose
instead to start as many wars as he could manage.
Harold Burton
<3796e2da-ba01-42ee...@j9g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
BretC...@peoplepc.com wrote:
> The deal needs to include a revenue neutral IRS rebate to cover the
> increase in federal fuel taxes.
>
> The overall effect is drivers would be paid to use less fuel.
>
> Anyone who shifts away from driving or at least from driving low mpg
> vehicles would come out ahead economically and anyone who really
> needed to drive to work or drive a truck to work would still be able
> to afford it.
And exactly how do you propose to implement this?
The Trucker
> On May 5, 8:22 am, The Trucker <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Last I looked the entire "poverty" budget took less than 5%. That
>> included Aid to Dependent Children, Workfare, School lunches, and all the
>> rest. So eliminating the whole business isn't going to "reduce spending"
>> a whole hellova lot. These percentages , as I said, were back BEFORE the
>> latest Republican Pig Prancing. The wasted dough in the middle east is
>> more than 15% of the discretionary budget. Seems simple enough when you
>> actually look at it. If you want to cut spending then this would be the
>> place to do it. The alternative, of course, is to have a special tax that
>> is assessed on all Republicans that believe that the conflict and the
>> occupation is protecting their coward butts form the camel jockeys. As for
>> me: I say, "Ride yer camels on over here and I'll kick yer ass. So long
>> as you stay on your side of the Atlantic I could care less". The proper
>> education of the Islamic people is to assure them that MAD is not just a
>> campaign slogan.
>
> You are wrong.... again. Why am I *not* surprised.
>
> You say the entitlement programs are 5% of the budget of $2.9
> trillion, which would be $145 billion...
No. You are just lying about what I said. The contect, which you have
thrown away to enable your Republican lying was "the discretionary
budget". Ya see, Social Security is off budget and is a self sustaining
program funded by FICA taxes paid only by working people. The
discretionary budget is the budget without Social Security outlaws but
bolstered by the excess income borrowed from the working class and the
poor by the lying Republicans. But you may have caught an error here. IT
could be that the entire poverty budget (you forgot to delete that part of
what I said) may actually be closer to 8.5% of the discretionary budget.
> add another $500 billion to
> that and you will be close.
You are including the OFF BUDGET Social Security stuff. That is quite
typical of a lying Republican.
> The total Defense budget is $700 billion, which includes the actual
> DOD budget of $480 billion, plus the War on Terror and Homeland
> Security.... or 24% of the budget.
Your numbers do not include the interest on the debt attributed to the
war and the cost of veterans affairs. And when you add them in and look
at the discretionary budget as opposed to limping in the self paid SS
system which is off budget, (like I said) then you will realize that
Republican Pig Prancing is 5 times the cost of the "poverty programs" (you
did mention the "war on poverty" I think).
> When you socialist come to power, expect to add $1 trillion to the
> budget, for starters, to pay for National Healthcare.
But I don't want to be misunderstood. I do not have this religious
problem that Republicans have with government and insurance systems.
I do not mind paying more taxes so long as I get something for the money
other than some prancing Republican pig mounted on a white horse claiming
to be the emperor of the "free world'.
Day Brown
>> Not that this idea is going to go anywhere mind you. Nobody in the
>> political elite with the power to do anything reads what we post.
>
> That's for sure.
cant help but wonder if the fact that we can work things out here in
secret- would not result in some kind of opportunity for us.
While the net has always had whackos saying the schitt was gonna hit the
fan, only one of them hasta be right about when, even if for the wrong
reasons. The power elites suffer from group think just like everyone
else. But thinking outside the box may take practice, such as this
exercise on what to do with the rail right of way, and then lead on to
something we can personally make use of.
I can see how the Fed, with the M3 money supply, can drive the stock
market up any time they want, or let it fall as far as they want just by
dumping the stock they already bought. So, for small investors who dont
have the inside info on when that will happen, its a fool's game.
So many realized that, they went into real estate thinking they knew
what they were investing in. So now, there must still be a large pool of
middle class money with no idea of where to put it.
If you recall, 20 months ago the big four precious metals houses
colluded to dump silver contracts, and dropped the price from 15$ to 9$
over nite. One of my correspondents told me he got taken on that deal. I
dont doubt they have found the means to manipulate precious metals as
well. There are innumerable boomers who have figured this out also, but
I've no notion of what they will try to do about it.
They may all end up living in FEMA trailers.
The Trucker
It is a windfall profits tax (a surtax on oil at 10% or so as long as oil
stays above say $90/b). The proceeds go out as a "stimulus".
You talk about something that will _**NEVER**_ get past the Republicans
in the Senate or past Bush! This would utterly refute tax cutting
stupidity in one fail swoop. It would totally gut 30 years of false
economics perpetrated by the right. It will never happen until the
Republicans are thrown out of the Senate and/or the economics profession
actually comes clean on all the lies and starts INFORMING the general
public.
BretC...@peoplepc.com
It's both progressive and green.
See Henry George.
Bret Cahill
ayatollah obama
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lets run through the numbers...
Service on the National debt is
$261 billion - National debt dervice
-------
$261 billion 9% of budget
Money collected for Social Security & Medicare: Social Security/
Medicare $994 billion are offset from revenues of $927.2 billion. And
there are hidden social programs in here that I am not counting.
$608 billion - Social Security
$386 billion - Medicare
------
$994 billion 34% of budget
$209 billion - Medicaid
$324 billion - Welfare
$69 billion - Health & Human Services
$35 billion - HUD
$10 billion - Labor
-------
$647 billion 22% of budget
What part of this do you *not* understand... $647 billion is 22% of
the budget, not 5% as you so incorrectly misled [lied] to make your
point. How convenient.
Defense:
$481 billion - Defense
$145 billion - Global war on terror
$39 billion - VA
$34 billion - Homeland Security
-----
$699 billion 24% of budget
What part of this do you *not* understand?
This leaves 11% of the budget for interior, education, energy,
justice, agriculture, NASA, treasury, and other stuff.
Michael Scheltgen
Do you have a link or source for these figures? Thanks.
Michael Scheltgen
Nevermind. Google is my friend.
Burto...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
So when the japs invaded Pearl Harbor it was a "crime"???? You really
do have a strange way of looking at a problem. Are you female by any
chance? Metro-sexual? Transgendered? Liberal?? All of the above??
ZerkonX
> Stalin.
is dead. Anyone among the living?
Burto...@gmail.com
> In article
> <3796e2da-ba01-42ee-9fe1-5a073ed09...@j9g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
> > The deal needs to include a revenue neutral IRS rebate to cover the
> > increase in federal fuel taxes.
>
> > The overall effect is drivers would be paid to use less fuel.
>
> > Anyone who shifts away from driving or at least from driving low mpg
> > vehicles would come out ahead economically and anyone who really
> > needed to drive to work or drive a truck to work would still be able
> > to afford it.
>
> And exactly how do you propose to implement this?
Government. More government. Bigger government.Higher taxes. Gubmint
mandates. More taxes on businesses. More businesses leaving the
country. More jobs lost. More people on welfare.More desperate people
looking for gubmint handouts. More democrat voters. See how easy that
is.
Burto...@gmail.com
Won't happen. The blacks have already destroyed them.
ayatollah obama
>
> - Show quoted text -
I thought all the gold disappeared because of all the rap stars/gang
bangers and their grills.
The Trucker
Yada, yada, yada..... (remaining unsourced stuff deleted)
First we will agree or disagree as to the SOURCE of the numbers.
Since you seem to like the number you've put up here then tell us the
exact source of the numbers. I will say that based on certain assumptions
the numbers look reasonable. But I will not accept your
interpretation of the budget numbers and it remains to be seen whether
your source is credible or not.
There is not or should not be a line item in the budgets that says "Global
War on Terror"
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/04/military_gwot_democrats_070403w/
The Trucker
It was an act of war carried out by a member of the allied axis of
Germany, Italy and Japan using military power.
> You really
> do have a strange way of looking at a problem.
It is called honesty and realism as opposed to self righteous pig prancing
and a desire to enhance the powers of "the unitary executive" and the
Republican fake morality establishment.
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/quotes/WarAndTheExecutive.php --------
War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war a
physical force is to be created, and it is the executive will which is to
direct it. In war the public treasures are to be unlocked, and it is the
executive hand which is to dispense them. In war the honors and
emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the active patronage
under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels
are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle.
The strongest passions, and the most dangerous weaknesses of the human
breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, and honorable or venial love of fame,
are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Are you female by any
> chance? Metro-sexual? Transgendered? Liberal?? All of the above??
Nope. I just don't let my testosterone level and/or the notion
that "humanity exists simply to fight some presumed war in the
name of God" interfere with my ability to be rational.
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> > > increase in federal fuel taxes.
>
> > > The overall effect is drivers would be paid to use less fuel.
>
> > > Anyone who shifts away from driving or at least from driving low mpg
> > > vehicles would come out ahead economically and anyone who really
> > > needed to drive to work or drive a truck to work would still be able
> > > to afford it.
>
> > And exactly how do you propose to implement this?
With rebates and taxes on oil companies.
Rightards like oil company profits and rightards hate rebates.
Small wonder the rightard wing of the GOP is in trouble.
Bret Cahill
Harold Burton
<0836b371-be91-4e7b...@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
BretC...@peoplepc.com wrote:
> > > > The deal needs to include a revenue neutral IRS rebate to cover the
> > > > increase in federal fuel taxes.
> >
> > > > The overall effect is drivers would be paid to use less fuel.
> >
> > > > Anyone who shifts away from driving or at least from driving low mpg
> > > > vehicles would come out ahead economically and anyone who really
> > > > needed to drive to work or drive a truck to work would still be able
> > > > to afford it.
> >
> > > And exactly how do you propose to implement this?
>
> With rebates and taxes on oil companies.
The meaning of "exactly" obviously escapes you. Exactly what sort of
taxes, what sort of rebates, who qualifies for those rebates, how are
they administered, etc.
Try again.
Les Cargill
> Les Cargill wrote:
>>> Not that this idea is going to go anywhere mind you. Nobody in the
>>> political elite with the power to do anything reads what we post.
>>
>> That's for sure.
> Polite discourse appreciated. Rationality is over the top. Thanx.
But that's what we always end up doing. Somebody gets tired of gnashing
teeth, rolls up the sleeves, and stuff starts happening.
> But- I
> cant help but wonder if the fact that we can work things out here in
> secret- would not result in some kind of opportunity for us.
>
Meh. Not likely. Maybe, but it'd be a large job, and you need
inside people who know what's what.
> While the net has always had whackos saying the schitt was gonna hit the
> fan, only one of them hasta be right about when, even if for the wrong
> reasons. The power elites suffer from group think just like everyone
> else.
Sure. They even have to try to herd the cats. We say "power elite", but
they working for *us*, truth be told. The top guy at WalMart, the one
who does interviews, knows who his customer is.
We're just not a very good boss.
> But thinking outside the box may take practice, such as this
> exercise on what to do with the rail right of way, and then lead on to
> something we can personally make use of.
>
We'll see. I imagine that the railroads have white papers gathering dust
with Plans on them. This is a good time to be a railroad.
> I can see how the Fed, with the M3 money supply, can drive the stock
> market up any time they want, or let it fall as far as they want just by
> dumping the stock they already bought. So, for small investors who dont
> have the inside info on when that will happen, its a fool's game.
>
I dunno. People who buy 401k plans usually ignore them and they mostly
do fine.
> So many realized that, they went into real estate thinking they knew
> what they were investing in. So now, there must still be a large pool of
> middle class money with no idea of where to put it.
>
You got it. Right now, it's inching towards what I'll call
"hedge funds" ( but they're not ) and driving the price
of commodities through the roof.
> If you recall, 20 months ago the big four precious metals houses
> colluded to dump silver contracts, and dropped the price from 15$ to 9$
> over nite.
Yup. And the Hunt Brothers are also big in railroads...
> One of my correspondents told me he got taken on that deal. I
> dont doubt they have found the means to manipulate precious metals as
> well. There are innumerable boomers who have figured this out also, but
> I've no notion of what they will try to do about it.
>
> They may all end up living in FEMA trailers.
It's not likely. After all, you have people with stuff, people who
want stuff, and they trade. Everything else is window
dressing.
--
Les Cargill
ayatollah obama
Here you are jackass..... also, I want the source for your 5% of the
budget *LIE* about welfare.
http://origin.www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/pdf/budget/defense.pdf
The Trucker
As for me I will just jump right out on that limb:
Let there be a federal surtax on oil company profits of 50% so
long as the price of oil remains above $80/b. This tax is rightfully
called a windfall profits tax (WPT).
With the big 3 oil companies booking $72B and assuming some smaller
contributions form the also ran oil companies we are probably looking at
more than $100B. This is going to be much higher for 2008 because the
price per barrel only averaged $65 in 2007 and now it is almost double
that. At 2007 prices the tax would recapture $50B.
These monies are accounted to every tax paying person in the united
states equally and placed into the hands of the citizenry in the same
manner as the recent stimulus (the government keeps NONE OF IT).
There are 300M people in the USA and I spose about 70% of em are tax
payers. So 50,000/210 = $238 bucks a year or $20 a month PER WORKING
FAMILY MEMBER. That's $40 a month for the two earner family. That should
help quite a bit and it should not affect the price of fuel at all. The
tax could be increased to 80% and it still would not affect the price of
fuel at the pump. And at present and predicted prices per barrel assuming
that profits follow wellhead prices as they should then this seems the
only viable course of action. The redistribution may run as high as to
give each family twice the amount I have stated. It is NOT enough to pay
for the total increase in pump prices but it is a lot more than at
filching "gas tax holiday". Those that conserve will be subsidized by
those that don't.
The rightards will scream that the oil companies do not control the price
and that the royalties are the real cost of the oil. My answer is that
when the companies that control the flow of oil tell the royalty people
they can't pay then the royalty people will simply suck eggs and take what
they can get. The Texas rancher that is currently getting $50k per week
for "allowing" the oil company to suck the oil out from under his ranch
can refuse to do so and lose the whole $50k or he can settle for less of
the totally unearned money. He will settle.