and 40 years from now scientists will retract what they are saying today. :1orglaugh


..............


While climatology scientists may be in agreement on something, that's not proof. it still has yet to be proven as fact/law. They all very well may be right but agreement on something is not proof, and proof is the ultimate goal of science.

the science is not settled.

Some good points CDSmith...but since the govt. is already taking money from the "General Fund" to keep the Highway Fund going...why don't they just continue to do that?

Raising the gasoline tax will be a huge burden on people who are already barely getting by and also raise the cost of living all the way around.

Hell, even the cost of doing the very highway work that the tax pays for will rise since they have to transport all those materials to the workplace, and run those giant trucks that spread asphalt, etc. (not to mention the CO2 and pollution that they will release with those massive engines in those things).

To say that "industry" profits most is kinda like saying that industry profits most from eating food or breathing air.
Industry produces stuff and provides jobs.

Truckers move it. And boy have they been hurting since the early 2000's.

I remember when truck drivers would come to the strip clubs that some of my former wives in my past worked at. They were LOADED with cash. They would spend thousands of dollars a night at the club and my woman would come home rolling in money.

And that was in the late 1980's and 1990's when a dollar was worth a lot more than it is now.

But when diesel fuel prices skyrocketed? Most of the truck drivers I know fell on hard times. They are BARELY making money after costs. What used to be $1.10 in 1994 is now almost $4 a gallon for them.

That's REAL money when you're using thousands of gallons to drive cross country.

Anyway, whatever happens will happen. You're right about that. No amount of argument on GFY will change anything.

My main point I was trying to make was with people telling me how important our tax dollars are for maintaining highways. And I always tell them that the National Gasoline Tax is what pays for Federal Hwy's. Our tax dollars (theoretically since the U.S. Govt. is in 17 trillion of debt) has only been used for the last few years as we use less gas and they get less money in Washington as a result.

And the ironic thing is: The Federal Govt. did "Cash For Clunkers" a few years ago.
Pres. Obama went on television and gave speeches about how it was going to save the country AND with people driving newer cars they would use less gas and save money.

I guess we will be losing those "savings" back to the Federal Govt. after all. Because all or our money we earn belongs to them (in their minds)

Jesus Christ! You just don't stop. The very link you posted proved your initial post wrong yet you keep doubling down. Just stop.

A huge burden? Lets say the average guy drives 1000 miles a month. Lets say he gets an avg 20 miles to the gallon. If they raised the gas tax to .29 a gallon to adjust for inflation it would be about $5 extra a month in gas costs.

And once again, here comes the favorite Republican thing to do. Base policy on personal experiences. Because your stripper ex-wife used to make a lot of money from truckers they were rolling in it.

And for the last time, the National Gasoline Tax does not exclusively fund the Highway Fund. It never has. It wasn't even set up for that purpose. You're just repeating the same thing over and over because it fits your narrative.

And then lets throw a zinger at the guy you despise the most. But again, wrong. The reason the highway fund is being depleted at a faster rate has a lot more to do with inflation then it does with consumers driving more fuel efficient vehicles. And let's say that was the main reason (it's not but lets go with it). If people are driving less and use less gas due to more fuel efficient vehicles wouldn't they be saving more $$, and have less of a 'burden'? The same thing the President initially said that you called him out for?

Unless my math is wrong, it's $14.50 extra a month on gas.

1000/ 20 = 50 gallons of gas a month used.

50 * .29c more per gallon = $14.50


What you are missing is the poor persons cost of goods rise (Beer, Pepsi, Chips, Bread etc)

So he probably loses closer to $50 a month.

That means $50 less he can spend on adult dating.

Your math is wrong.

From 18.3 cents to 29 cents is a 10.7 cent increase or $5.35 a month. The last time the federal gas tax was raised (1993) the tax constituted 17% of your total cost. Today that same gas tax is about 5% of the total cost. Not only that but the last time the tax was raised, gas prices actually dropped by roughly 10% within the first 3 months.

http://www.kiplinger.com/article/sav...-cost-you.html

Because, and I'm citing the article I posted as well as a few others I've found since that corroborate it, the reason they don't "just continue to do that" is the fund can no longer generate enough revenue to do so due to it's devaluation of upwards of 40% since the early 90's.

Simply put, it's not enough.


If pressed for a prediction I'd have to say there's a tax hike in your future.

I'd also add that any other candidate who might have been elected in Obammer's place (IE: Romney) would very (as in VERY) likely have arrived at the same crossroads and be faced with the present dilema, and would now be discussing the same options Obama is. In other words this may not be fodder for political finger-pointing so much as it could merely be "cost of doing business" on a national level. But let's not let that stop the petty bickering. :D

I'm looking at the numbers...Latest ones I could find was 2011. The Feds took in over 41 billion dollars in gasoline tax. That's a lot of money.

All I can see on how much Congress had to add to the fund over the last few years was where it says that between 2008 and 2010 Congress added a total of 35 billion. So that's a little over 11 billion dollars more per year.

So let's say that they did that again in 2011. That gave the Hwy fund around 52 BILLION dollars to spend that year alone.
The richest guy is Bill Gates...he's worth 76 billion dollars all together. So his work over his lifetime is just a little more than the Feds have in the "insolvent" Highway fund EVERY YEAR!

Man, if they can't repair roads in the U.S. with 52 BILLION dollar PER YEAR...there must be a lot of waste and stealing and corruption.

I'd think that with 52 billion dollars we would drive on the most beautiful highways of all times. And they are spending that kind of money every year? Wow.

We are in the wrong business. We need to be in the business of being in the govt.

Speaking to the notion of the "cost of doing business," I'd like to point out why such a devaluation has taken place. The organization tasked with collecting the fund is the same organization in charge of supplying the money (the U.S. govt.). It should be obvious to anyone with a shred of economic sense, that the "cost" of producing an ever-inflating supply of currency is: there never seems to be enough of it to go around. They print more; more is needed. And before you say, "well duh!" -- consider this: who gets the fresh bills first? Not you or me.

The argument in favor of FIAT money is centered around the notion that the "greater good" is best served by forcing equality (don't mind the fact that this isn't possible, or even quantifiable). It's called Socialism, and its subjects are forced to accept money that they don't demand, in exchange for services that nobody deserves. The result is ever-increasing prices on under-appreciated goods. While this snake is busy eating its own tail, the honey badger abides.

Generally speaking (NOT EVERYONE) people who don't make a very good living (say under 200k yr) bitch about the 1%, bigger Gov, more taxes etc.

MOST of the time, once someone starts making a healthy amount of money and gets a taste of how much the top 1% actually pays, they start studying, learning about the tax code and what % of people cover what % of the nations tax burden. Very often they change their tune.

Id guess 95% of the people bitching the rich don't pay enough are NOT rich (say top 1% of earners...350k a yr) which makes sense. And 95% of those making that much or more want a fair system where everyone pays a fair % (flat tax etc)

Most people in this country don't pay ANY income tax at all. While the low earners may not like the % the wealthy pay, the fact is that the top 20% of earners cover a HUGE % of the total income tax paid.

I think a flat tax is fair. I don't see how ANYONE can complain about everyone paying an equal %. If we all pay an equal share, sure...some of us contribute more to the country than others, but thats cool. I think if you have worked hard and EARNED a good amount of money you should feel blessed and lucky, its not easy to be in the top 1% or .1%. But to say that because someone works harder, or is smarter...or hell, just luckier than most other people they should have to pay a higher %, thats just nuts. They are already paying far, far more in real dollars than the 99% below them

I think the most fair system is one in which the poor are punished for being poor, and the rich rewarded for being rich. That way, efficiency and hard work can flourish, while sloth and incompetence are snuffed out. And I mean literally snuffed out; the poor should starve to death. Nobody is entitled to food or shelter; if you can't make it in this world, then you aren't needed. It is a cancer of the mind to think that these individuals should be propped up, enabling their ability to reproduce.

2 Thessalonians 3:10-12: