PS I forgot to mention that the two comments are not exactly the same. JAY has appended (WARNING-VERY DISTURBING) to this second posting.

I agree with him. It is VERY DISTURBING that JAY is playing some kind of game with us and abusing our trust. Very “controlling”, JAY, when you try to propagandize folks rather than help them seek real truth.

Robb, you do need to do a little research on things before blowing off steam. Seems like that “lifetime” paycheck for ex senators and ex representatives has NOT been a fact for upwards of thirty years. Since 1984 they have been on the same retirement program as all other federal employees, with the exception of the military. You pay into the program from day one, but are guaranteed nothing until you have been on the job for five years, and then can’t draw a cent until you are sixty. So, is NOT a lifetime paycheck any more for anyone other than the president.

How about if you run foir President you also give that time of 100% to the job the people electred you to do. If you serve 4 years thart would be 4 years with no vacations and no pay. Most of these guys are millionatres anyway and then they make a few 100 million while in office writing a book. I cant find time to write a paper to pass a class, much less abook while I’m supposed to be working for the peple who elected me. If you dont want to job dont run for office,stops the power grabbing and brings it back to serving the posstion.

The federal highway trust fund worked to build the best interstate highway system
in the world and it can work to keep it that way whether it is funded by a one-time
special tax or tripling the federal gas tax.

Batman it is probably not a good idea to wash down your stupid pills with vodka!

Gee Wiz Bradman,
you’re just not a happy kind of guy?

Thanks for being just semi rude instead of full on rude. Yes, I realize who plays the lottery. As do middle class and dang, even well off folks try it out. All I was suggesting that perhaps it was an alternative to taxing gas further, by gallon or by mile. As with all these add-on taxes, the poor will suffer the most.

robb,

I respectfully disagree. it’s not simply a tax on the poor, as you day. For many years now, that expression has been misused often and is a mislabeling of the facts. It can’t be called a tax on the poor without also calling it a tax on the rich and the middle class!

And, the comment that “by and large played by those who can….” is misleading because there are no records or documentation identifying the purchaser of a lottery ticket and their income.

And robb ignores the BEST part of the whole lottery system. Unlike taxes which are taken from you at GUNPOINT, Lottery “taxes” are paid willingly by the taxbase.

In fact it solves the problem I was having in a system of ‘fair’ taxation where those who vote for a tax PAY the tax. My system would not work because of the desire for a secret ballot.

The lottery system IS a secret voting system.

Nice.

The free market is a wonderful way to get things done. (Note please that I said free market. I was not referring to the government scewed fascist state that currently masquarades as the free market here in the US) If states don’t want to keep up their roads it is only their own commerce that will suffer. States will actually do a great job keeping up roads without the federal spend monsters skimming off their percentage as it’s the difference between life an death for the states. It’s called accountability and accepting that there are consequences for action or inaction. These are things they are not required to understand in Washington. If anyone in Washington was truly held accountable no one would have been re-elected last November. Instead the same old gang of Keystone cops is back marching us toward extinction.

“If states don’t want to keep up their roads it is only their own commerce that will suffer” <— robb

Yeah? try telling that to the state on the other side where the goods are being shipped.

Ahhh…but would you take the rail if YOU had to pay for it instead of those who do not use it?

Use it..or benefit by it?

Drive Seattle traffic. I kid you not…Socrates would still have chosen the hemlock given the option of that nightmare. Seattle has one rush hour….consisting of 18 hours a day. I was back east a bit ago, and had to deal with that mess. i swear, there were times I was hoping someone would take me out and cap me…put me out of the misery so to speak. Compare with Portland. A Metro area approaching 2 million. Servicing a surrounding series of satellite Towns/hubs adding another half million or so. If you’re stuck in crawl, and it lasts more than a mile or so…it’s not a usual event. Mass transit everywhere, affordable and easily accessible. Land Use which compacted the urban area so drives are shorter and far more options available as far as streets, highways routes etc. (you can be downtown, and in 15 minutes be in rural).

I would argue anyone who lives in Portland receives a huge benefit to those utilizing the trains and trolleys and buses. Should they not help keep it and pay for that benefit ?

So Flashy by your on statement you get around the gas tax now and would be avoiding it more in the future so you don’t care if the government taxes those of us who live in rural areas more because we have no trains and electric cars are no very well suited to our conditions. As long as you have ways to get around it you could care less about others.

If you can not trust yourself, then you need to be institutionalized.

Read the Constitution as an enumerated list of powers that the (Federal) government gets. Remove ALL programs and departments operating outside that list.

MUCH smaller government that NEEDS MUCH less money to operate.

http://www.downsizeDC.org

Vicki the problem is the world has changed since the time of the founding fathers. In their time only white land owners could vote or hold office. And their focus was less on those less fortunate and more on building a stable republic out of a collection of former colonies. As we have advanced as a society we have come to understand our responsibility as a society to care for the lest among us. As we have come to develop greater resources so we have come to have the responsibility to use those resources wisely. May sound like sentimental hogwash. But wasn’t it Christ who said “And the King shall answer and say to them, Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me.” and was it not Proverbs 19:17 that says “He who is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will reward him for what he has done.”. If people are going to claim America is a Christian nation shouldn’t our countries policies strive to reflect the teachings of Christ.

The bible and Jesus also talk about theft. Taking money from people against their will no matter what the cause is a crime.

Jeremy if the constitution is out of date there is a provision for changing it. That provision is called amending the constitution. If you were old enough to have actualy been taught American history you would know this. Until it is amended the constitution stands as written.

Here are some people who push for the electric car:

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/electric-car-fans-rally-around-the-volt/

http://www.pluginamerica.org/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IENnSK8Q6nE

hedgehog….to you as well as everyone else

Flasky -
Evidently NOT!!! Didn’t the one who is THE Determiner about what is or is not important make some comments a few years ago about, “shovel ready jobs” that all those nearly a trillion dollars were going to be spent to fix?
Yah! then they put up the “ACORN” signs, the workers, shovels and coulee hats disappeared and so did the $$$.

The only thing about it that continued to hang in the air like Ovomit halitosis was his silly, totally in character, decietful worker comment to Jeffy Imelt about, “…not so shovel ready jobs.”

To anyone who drives or walks on roads or bridges.

Understandable. We do need to spend less and spend more responsibly. However we also need to raise revenue. Its not enough to cut back on the junk food. We also need to exercise more.

Andy,

You’re 100% correct – the problem is the spending not the money! And, this will not change because America is currently divided by a 50/50 split with regard to the direction America should go. This has occurred twice before in America and both times were very bad for America. I’m referring to the Revolution of 1776 and the Civil War in the 1860s.

Today, we see a division between people who believe the federal government should provide everybody with everything and the people who want a federal government similar to what our Founding Fathers envisioned, a government that does not support nor fund entitlement programs, a government that does not regulate its people to control them, a government that does not manipulate commerce through tax incentives and regulations, etc., etc., etc.

Rock no one wants the federal government to provide everyone with everything. They want the federal government to make sure everyone has the same basic resources.

Jeremy Leochner says:
“Rock no one wants the federal government to provide everyone with everything. They want the federal government to make sure everyone has the same basic resources.”

Hmmmm…. To each according to his need. Very interesting.

Vicki if a person is starving they need food. If they are freezing they need clothing. If a person has been hit by hard times not through their own fault they need support. Those less fortunate and those who have given service need and deserve support. The elderly and military veterans. The working poor and the disabled. Why is it wrong to care for and support these groups?

Jeremy Leochner says:
“Vicki if a person is starving they need food. If they are freezing they need clothing. If a person has been hit by hard times not through their own fault they need support.”

Why just those who hit hard times through no fault? Don’t the others need food and clothing too? note they don’t actually need clothing. Warm shelter would work fine.

- Jeremy Leochner: “Those less fortunate and those who have given service need and deserve support. The elderly and military veterans. The working poor and the disabled.”

Go for it. Use any money you can persuade people to give to your charity. Here is a suggestion of where to look for people who routinely give to charity.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2006/12/06/who_gives_to_charity/page/full/

- Jeremy Leochner: “Why is it wrong to care for and support these groups?”

Where, and be VERY precise have we EVER said it is wrong to care for and support these groups?

Pure hokum. A fable.

Thanks Flashy! I have checked, rechecked, and double checked this STORY, and all it is or ever has been is a STORY. No such panel was ever planned for Obamacare, but has been cussed and discussed innumerable times by people such as Mr. Douglas.

Flashy and Chester, you might want to see what a top Democrat strategist and donor who served as President Obama’s lead auto-industry adviser recently conceded: that the rationing of heath services under Obamacare is “inevitable.”

Steven Rattner advocated that such rationing should target elderly patients, while stating, “We need death panels.”

The complete NY Times article is at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=1

The gist is that there’s absolutely NO WAY to sustain Obamacare without rationing of services, and the elderly will be hit hardest.

He says, “Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.

“But in the pantheon of toxic issues — the famous “third rails” of American politics — none stands taller than overtly acknowledging that elderly Americans are not entitled to every conceivable medical procedure or pharmaceutical.”

Rattner, according to Aaron Klein, “serves on the board the New America Foundation, or NAF, a George Soros-funded think tank that was instrumental in supporting Obamacare in 2010. Soros’ son, financier Jonathan Soros, is also a member of the foundation’s board.”

Vig, i read the article. I’m assuming that the last comment re; George Soros came from somewhere else as it wasn’t in the NYT’s article. Thus, i can’t comment on that.

But the article does flush out the issues.

And he is right. Public health cannot be expected to pay for everything. The Oregon health Plan is something that provides a good history of the debate. The OHP “… provides health care coverage to low-income Oregonians through programs administered by the Division of Medical Assistance Programs (DMAP). Currently, more than 600,000 people each month receive health care coverage through the Oregon Health Plan.”

OK…when first developed about 10 years ago, OHP provided a list of what would be paid. they listed 1 2 3 4 5 somewhere around 130 procedures. Then came the big case. A young teen needing a double lung transplant. have the operation or it was lights out. The OHP said ‘sorry…not covered”. And it hit the news and the uproar was something to behold. the double transplant was going to cost upwards of a million, and would open up the OHP to more of the same claims. They could not afford it under the budget. Kitzhaber was coming up to the end of his first regime then, a Dem., and he backed the OHP decision saying the same. It helped that he was a former Emergency Room physician before going into the governor’s office.

Kitzhaber withstood the uproar. The OHP would only cover XYZ…the average covered by the average private basic health insurance plan. Fortunately, the uproar was enough to spur donations and she was able to receive her transplant.

Howver, the debate raged and Kulongowski came into the Governor’s office. Now let me tll you about Teddy. A Dem., and about as useful and active as a rock. No lie..someone once file a Missing person’s Report because he was hardly ever seen or heard from. Best anyone can tell, he sat on his butt and played video games…who knows what teddy was dong?

As such, he ignored the state. And OHP was expanded to include a number of additional procedures (some organ transplants but not lung etc). it went downhill from there. it lowered payments to doctors which caused them to avoid the Plan like the plague. it was overwhelmed by applicants because ti was free and provided more coverage than private plans…. so folks set their finances up to join the Plan and have otherwise non-covered procedures covered . it was soon a signature disaster in the making. As was almost everything else due to Teddy playing with himself and ignoring the state.

Teddy left, and Kitzhaber came out of retirement and was elected in a landslide. He has whiped it back into shape and the OHP went back to a more limited list of what is covered. it’s still not back to what it was, but Kitzhaber is getting it back to what it was intended. Basic health care. The average of the average private basic health insurance plan.

Such is what i would hope Medicaid and Medicare are reformed as. Not increasing costs or limiting applicants due to age etc…

Vigilant -
How dare you insinuate yourself with some facts into Flasky’s personal mating dance with some of his favorite Obamaisms. “Tain’t fair, MacGee!” Here he goes to such extremes to avoid being confronted by such ideas or actually having to think about something that is in conflict with the story line he’s supposed to present. He can’t let that kind of stuff get under his mazzuza.

Well, I’ll be d’…..
I’ve gotta take it back, Flash. You done yourself good.

Hey! you …. … score keeper! … … put a tick up over there on the good side for The Flash … maybe, two.

ike…my stance hasn’t changed FYI. I have always ben for a public option under Obamacare. think about it. If the basic plan 9average of average0 s offered, and paid for via general funds, the shot to the economy would be tremendous. Employer freed from health care costs and people freed from payment? All that expendable cash? Whoa baby ! Yes…there would be the taxes having to pay for it…but cash on hand versus a one time annual future liability…jehosaphat, a no brainer. Anything or than basic, one has to look to private industry for a rider. And if government is inefficient and costs more or services are inferior? Private insurance can offer up a competing product offering quicker access etc and, in capitalist theory, at a low cost.

And, at the bottom, everyone is covered at least by the basics.

And here is where the crony “public/private” partnerships come in. More toll roads, a LOT MORE.

Vicki…a few days ago i believe TML raised this issue. As i stated then, our state is looking at the issue at the state level. The options are what you note, and the third raising the gas tax the state charges.

From what the media is saying, the GPS is out the window. That has a very low level of public support. myself? I’m for raising the gas tax. if you add in any fed tax with the state tax, it gets near a dime a gallon. With gas at $3.30 right now (regular), a dime ain’t gonna break me.

I’m leery of a registration mileage surcharge. Those who are barely making it will feel pain if there is one lump sum of $250 (as a talking point amount) added to registration.

We should be viewing this as a pleasant dilemma. We’re weaning ourselves off of imported oil, the cars are lighter and do less damage to the roads, and we’re cutting into air pollutant levels (have you seen the latest on China’s air pollution? )

Manual odometer readings won’t be necessary. Event data recorders (EDR) are already being installed in many new vehicles, and NTSA wants them in every new vehicle.

GM’s OnStar RemoteLink records all sorts of data about your car. Progressive Insurance provides a plug in device for new insurees that tracks mileage, speed, trips per day and hard braking info. The data is reported electronically and can be viewed on the internet.

Government knows that these black boxes will be able to track you anywhere, and with GPS data, your whereabouts will be a matter of knowledge to Big Brother at all times.

“I’m for raising the gas tax. if you add in any fed tax with the state tax, it gets near a dime a gallon. With gas at $3.30 right now (regular), a dime ain’t gonna break me.”

Sorry Flashy, you’re completely wrong.

“The United States federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon (cpg) and 24.4 cents per gallon (cpg) for diesel fuel. On average, as of April 2012, state and local taxes add 31.1 cents to gasoline and 30.2 cents to diesel for a total US average fuel tax of 49.5 cents (cpg) per gallon for gas and 54.6 cents per gallon (cpg) for diesel.” (http://www.gaspricewatch.com/web_gas_taxes.php)

You need to check that link for a state-by-state list. “Dime a gallon?” I hardly think so.

Vig…didn’t they start having the black box in the 2005 cars? i know it goes against the false image folks think of me as…but I have an older jeep along with my main vehicle so i have means of avoiding the tracking issues. i haven’t used it for that purpose…i love my jeep, but i do own the older model with that being one of the reasons.

“Vigilant says:”

Vig…reading hat i wrote, it is unclear that i was speaking of the potential increases in the gas tax. not the overall gas tax amount.

My apologies for not being clear on that …

VICKI
you may have seen the movie fahrenheit 451. look for the movie [ THE LAST CHASE]
the movie is about where the goverment has total control, you work where they want you
to.
JON A. [USMC RET.]

To be frank, it’s amusing to watch the liberals argue against their own philosophy without even realizing it.

Regressive taxation has always been a thorn in the side of the left, or so they tell us. Progressive taxation is the only “fair” way to go, they say, and soaking the rich is one way to do it.

However, they show their true colors when they stand behind a scheme to increase taxes that will hit the poor disproportionately, i.e., increase an already regressive tax. A 32 – 45 cent F.E.T. will mean that EVERYONE, including the working poor, will pay an average of between 63 – 76 cents per gallon on top of the base price of gasoline.

Where is the high dudgeon of the liberals across the land decrying this regressive tax? Unheard, of course. It proves, by their own hypocrisy, that they don’t give a damn about the poor. Tax and spend, tax and spend, regardless of who it hurts, and make even more people dependent upon government for their daily bread.

this is all about them controling you. and you thought your vote really counted. stop giving them a pass on their moronic thinking. get off you butt and fight for your right to party.

All comments are missing the mark, if the numbers in the article are the ones used by the Feds then someone is pulling the wool over our eyes. If you do the math with the stats provided the average driver drives approximately 4500 miles annually. multiply this by 4 and you have a realistic number of average miles per person per year. Thus the money collected is also multiplied by 4, so who is kidding who here?

Vigilant, which is going to be easier for the poor man to pay, an extra twenty or thirty cents a gallon at the pump, or an extra two to five hundred dollars at the collector’s window when he goes in to renew his registration? Bad thing where I live is the absolute fact that more than likely, it wouldn’t be every year, but every other year, meaning an additional four hundred to a thousand dollars when I go to renew my tags. Seeing as how I only make about a grand a month, that would wipe out a whole month’s income just to pay the mileage tax, then I would have to pay the regular license fee on top of that, upwards of another hundred dollars at this time.

“However, they show their true colors when they stand behind a scheme to increase taxes that will hit the poor disproportionately, i.e., increase an already regressive tax. A 32 – 45 cent F.E.T. will mean that EVERYONE, including the working poor, will pay an average of between 63 – 76 cents per gallon on top of the base price of gasoline.

Where is the high dudgeon of the liberals across the land decrying this regressive tax? Unheard, of course. It proves, by their own hypocrisy, that they don’t give a damn about the poor. Tax and spend, tax and spend, regardless of who it hurts, and make even more people dependent upon government for their daily bread.” <— Vig

interesting thoughts Vig. Serious. I thought about your observation for at first it did indeed strike me as you described/wrote it. But it does make sense if you look at what i see as a role government should have. One which you and i disagree on.

See..i view one role of government to encourage and push certain areas of activity and action which benefits society and smooths out the high and low of private enterprise. It is a traditional role our government has taken.

Take the automobile. The auto is private enterprise. the roads, the fueling pipelines, the basic overall infrastructure was built maintained and expanded by government. Can anyone argue the raid expansion in the 20's and 30's of modern roads an pipelines to rural aras is not a benefit? Same with Air. Government stepped in with airports and the infrastructure there. Can anyone argue left to itself, private air service would have been as fast and smooth in growing from infancy? Or the internet. ? or the existence of cable in every town in this nation? (google has a processing center in a small distant rural town here. It brought jobs and increased the skills of the local labor force. The electrical grid and the internet cable infrastructure allow it to be there, and Google makes out like a bandit with a huge structure without any neighbors complaining, sucks up at cheap cos the electricity from a nearby dam and windfarm, and is a happy camper with little to no local resistance).

So yeah…allowing the owners of electric and hybrids is a good for society and should be encouraged. It will affect the poor proportionately, but overall I would argue the poor don't travel and use gas as much as the more affluent. And…sooner or later, the hybrids which are new today will be used tomorrow..and the entire fleet of this country will adapt over to the benefit of everyone, including the poor, as we wean off of foreign oil etc……as pushed by the government policies.

On the face, it appears to be a clash. But if one sees a role in government as i do, it doesn't clash. But…i accept that you have a different role of government viewpoint. It would be a dull world indeed if everyone was right all the time as I am

When a person is in terrible problems they do drastic things.

Flashy

I have news for you — the gasoline taxes are a lot higher than 10 cents per gallon.

The United States federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel fuel. As of April 2012, the average state and local taxes add 31.1 cents to gasoline and 30.2 cents to diesel for a total US average fuel tax of 49.5 cents per gallon for gas and 54.6 cents per gallon for diesel.

That’s a lot more than 10 cents per gallon — and you want to pay more for the current gas tax averaging 50 cents per gallon in America?

And, if you add all the other taxes – federal, state, city, county, school districts, etc. (including hidden taxes that we pay) the average tax rate for the Americans taxpayer is now at an annual rate of 54%. This means the average taxpayer works more than half of the year to just pay all their taxes. And, we can expect huge tax increases in 2013 and 2014 at both federal and state levels which will drastically increase the annual average 54% tax rate.

When will this “just tax the people” mentality end? When it’s at 100%?

Don’t you think it’s time to draw a line in the sand and say NO to tax increases and new taxes and YES to cut the spending!!!

My personal opinion is that anyone who believes the continued answer to our nation’s mounting problems are more taxes and more spending is: (1) insane, (2) unable to think for themselves, or (3) motivated by an agenda to ruin America!

“I have news for you — the gasoline taxes are a lot higher than 10 cents per gallon.” <— Rock

As I clarified with Vig…i was speaking of what the ADDED tax increase would be, not the overall current. my apologies..

As for your comment on taxes….This admin has flat lined federal spending, and what tax increases that have been were passed in Congress..i.e.includes the House. Taxes were wayyyy too low for the expenses rung up by the GOP during the 00's. How do you propose to pay for that? If you say…"reduce spending" … OK, specifically what would you cut? Programs now…and the effect of cutting them (not only savings, but what they would eliminate in programs)….

Go ahead…easy to yell from the stands. Show us your stuff…

Flashy,

You said: This admin has flat lined federal spending, and what tax increases that have been were passed in Congress..i.e. includes the House. Taxes were wayyyy too low for the expenses rung up by the GOP during the 00′s. How do you propose to pay for that? If you say…”reduce spending” … OK, specifically what would you cut? Programs now…and the effect of cutting them (not only savings, but what they would eliminate in programs)”

I say: What are you talking about – you use subjective words with general meaning (non-specific) in your comments like: “flat-lined federal spending” and “taxes wayyy too low for the expenses rung up”…. Good grief — let’s talk about no balanced budget (which is the responsibility of the Prez) and the deficit spending of the federal government that’s increasing our national debt at an alarming and unsustainable level and will ultimately destroy our economy and the dollar.

You said “Go ahead…easy to yell from the stands. Show us your stuff…”

I say: You, too are in the stands and showing us your stuff; so, why can’t I contribute to this blog?

As far as cutting spending — that’s not hard to do; rather, it’s something that this Administration and Congress don’t want to do! What they want to do and are doing is kicking the can down the road by not fixing problems but pushing them into the future and hoping when that future arrives, they are retired and living the good life while the rest of us (the mutts) pay the price. Wake you, man!

Tires wear out roads not gas. I would expect the purchase of tires to include a road tax. Then the bigger the tire the greater the tax. Trucks do more damage but studded tires cause more wear on the roads. So in one sense this would be a tax per mile without tracking anyone.

Who are they kidding it’s all about tracking our every move another treasonous act against our freedoms.

Option 3 ALL THE ABOVE. The government loves all the info it can get on you.

How will Flashy pay for this ?? How will most of the Middle Class pay for this Obamacare ??? go to page 56 and page 70 of this IRS Report and look at what Healthcare coverage will cost a family of 4 and 5….. how will the consumer driven economy react to this ?

http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf

so if I’m reading this right a family of 4 with a gross icome of 98000, will cost roughly 20k per year and they will use the IRAS to track and collect; is there now going to be a debtors prison? Because they wont be avble to collect 60% of the collection at any given time other than hye first time they swoop through and steal your cahsh or property. Congratualtions you people votingt in Civil War.

Raising the gas tax seems like the most fair and protect our right to privacy.

Vote No America, make them find that shovel ready TARP money they lost

No shell you and your Prius do not “get by”. You still cause wear and tear to the highways you just do less than the a SUV so would pay a lower rate but you would still have to pay.

That would last about two days then the various states would be calling for a means of getting their share of the money to cover out of state vehicles traveling on their roads. The only practical way to do that would be GPS or similar means of determining where your vehicle travelled.