the statement that "federal tax dollars fund the highways today" may be "true", but
it should be viewed in historical context...

a perhaps good analogy would be: you and your friend are going out to drink for years, you have always picked up the tab, but last few weeks you are short on cash, and your buddy payed for the drinks...

so while the statement, "your buddy is paying for drinks" is strictly true, it's a bit misleading and almost ridiculous, he has been leeching off you for years, and only last few weeks decided to pickup the tab...

it would be a bit of a stretch to say: "your buddy is paying for drinks"
don't you agree?

It's not being "paid back." That's not how it was designed, by your own admission. And again, by your own admission, it is now being subsidized by other taxes.

Holy fuck. I want to agree with you guys because typically I do, but you are arguing with yourselves and proving with your very own arguments the exact opposite of what you are trying to say.

Any way that anyone tries to spin this, money outside of the gas tax is being funneled into the Highway Trust Fund to... get this... subsidize the fund!

Taxes are not set up as bank accounts. Money comes in, money goes out. That's what happened. If we want to play the tax piggy bank game, we could sit here all day long and talk about how this program and that program is not really subsidized because at some point in time somebody wasted the tax money that was previously collected.

It's not ridiculous at all because that's exactly what is happening. Again, you are admitting the fund is being subsidized by other taxes yet trying to find a way around it with a technicality that does not even apply.

There is no analogy. There is no other explanation. Money comes in, money goes out. That's how taxes work. That's how this tax was designed.

yep, and i even hear that the radiation issues are being fixed by special bacteria.. even the oil spills

nature is definitely a fascinating thing to watch in action, eh Robbie.

I wouldn't call it a technicality...when a fund is setup, it's supposed to be used only for that purpose... when there is a surplus the fund grows, so when in later years revenues slow down, there is $$ in the reserve... but because of mismanagement, the $$ that was supposed to grow the reserve in the fund was stolen for other purposes and so there is no reserve...

it seems ridiculous to call giving back what was stolen a "subsidy"...

Let me offer another analogy:

you operate a taxi service, you charge $10 for a trip to the airport

you do 10 routes, call it a day, go out to dinner and spend $30...

next day you go fill up your gas tank, bill is $80 and notice there is only $70 in your pocket...

what conclusions do you draw from this?

- the $10 charge is not enough to operate this business profitably? translation: "gasoline taxes are not enough to cover the costs of the highways"
- perhaps you have to "subsidize" $10 from your own money? translation: "federal income taxes are subsidizing the highways"
- or perhaps you have to just give back the $30 that you spent on dinner? so then you not only can pay for gas, you have $20 left saved up for repairs when they come up?

Go back and read the link YOU posted. The gas tax and subsequent fund WASN'T set up for that purpose.

So I'm really not sure what you're even talking about. You're arguing with yourself.

Well then, I guess according to some GFY folks...that Congress is just wasting it's time.

Federal Highways are not paid for by the national gas tax. So there is no need for it. And certainly no need to raise it.

So they should just abolish it and bring our gasoline prices down by 18 cents a gallon.

I'm good with that.

It's possible I may be confused about the facts... I was under the impression that the "Highway Trust Fund" was setup to pay for the highways....


Here is another tidbit of info I found:

Mary Peters (Secretary of Transportation):
"You know, I think Americans would be shocked to learn that only about 60 percent of the gas tax money that they pay today actually goes into highway and bridge construction. Much of it goes in many, many other areas."

Source: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/trans...ructure_08-15/


so 40% of the gas taxes are used for other purposes, but yet we have to subsidize highways from income taxes?

that's some twisted logic, one that only some Washington bureaucrat could come up with...

"We're on the highway To Hell."

"Hell ain't a bad place to be."

AC/DC

acid rain was real and thru gov regs with dealt with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain I quote:

Meanwhile, in 1989, the U.S. Congress passed a series of amendments to the Clean Air Act. Title IV of these amendments established the Acid Rain Program, a cap and trade system designed to control emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Title IV called for a total reduction of about 10 million tons of SO2 emissions from power plants. It was implemented in two phases. Phase I began in 1995, and limited sulfur dioxide emissions from 110 of the largest power plants to a combined total of 8.7 million tons of sulfur dioxide. One power plant in New England (Merrimack) was in Phase I. Four other plants (Newington, Mount Tom, Brayton Point, and Salem Harbor) were added under other provisions of the program. Phase II began in 2000, and affects most of the power plants in the country.

During the 1990s, research continued. On March 10, 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). This rule provides states with a solution to the problem of power plant pollution that drifts from one state to another. CAIR will permanently cap emissions of SO2 and NOx in the eastern United States. When fully implemented, CAIR will reduce SO2 emissions in 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia by over 70% and NOx emissions by over 60% from 2003 levels.[18]

Overall, the program's cap and trade program has been successful in achieving its goals. Since the 1990s, SO2 emissions have dropped 40%, and according to the Pacific Research Institute, acid rain levels have dropped 65% since 1976.[19][20] Conventional regulation was utilized in the European Union, which saw a decrease of over 70% in SO2 emissions during the same time period.[21]

In 2007, total SO2 emissions were 8.9 million tons, achieving the program's long term goal ahead of the 2010 statutory deadline.[22]

The EPA estimates that by 2010, the overall costs of complying with the program for businesses and consumers will be $1 billion to $2 billion a year, only one fourth of what was originally predicted.[19]

OMG, I hope none of you guys give up on this thread. Keep hammering away at each other, we're making real headway here. Given enough time, enough wall-of-text posts, enough sarcasm, this thread has a real chance of being noticed by the government, and quite possibly end up serving as a guidepost for making REAL CHANGES that are positive, sensible, and beneficial to all.

I really believe that.

I do.

Yup.

He's not very bright.

Here, I'll pour some more gas on the fire...

From today's NYTimes

Highways Need A Higher Gas Tax
About 10,000 motorists die each year because of inadequate road conditions, and millions of other Americans waste large portions of their lives stuck in traffic or stalled trains. The enormous cost to society of poor infrastructure grows every year, and most of the blame can be placed directly on a Congress that refuses to collect and spend enough money to fix it.

On Tuesday the House made the situation worse with a sad excuse for a highway funding bill: A 10-month measure that keeps spending at an inadequate level and does not address the dwindling revenues that keep producing all-too-familiar cliffhanging crises. The bill pays for building projects through a series of budget gimmicks, including one that will probably result in companies underfinancing their pensions. Yet the Obama administration, desperate to avoid the cancellation of projects that would occur if the Highway Trust Fund runs out of money next month, decided to support the stopgap bill.

This crisis was entirely foreseeable and was brought about by the ideological refusal of Congressional Republicans to raise the gasoline tax ? the traditional method of paying for road projects, because it allows those who benefit from better roads to pay for them. The gas tax has been stuck at 18.4 cents a gallon since 1993, and during those 21 years it has lost 39 percent of its value to inflation. But Republicans, afraid of violating a no-tax-increase pledge they made to an extremist group, won?t touch it. ?I?ve never supported raising the gas tax,? Speaker John Boehner said last week.

By the NY Times Editorial Board.
Full article HERE>>>

Are you kidding with this? Some the biggest multi nationals in the world have a clear economic interest in disproving global warming.

What are your thoughts on that?

With gas at almost $4 a gallon and rising. Bringing up the cost of EVERYTHING we buy (a tax on the poor).
The economy already hanging by a thread.

Do you think we need the govt. to add this tax and raise the price of gasoline even more (and thus the price of everything else that has to be transported: Food, clothing, household goods, etc.)?

They certainly do! Big oil wants to make money. No doubt.

Funny though...their scientist's findings are immediately tossed aside by the left. That "science" is "fake".

But the "science" put out by the scientists who are funded by companies with billions tied up in Green energy? Oh...that "science" is ABSOLUTE and cannot be disputed or you are an idiot and a "denier".

Just think...if GFY were around in 1977, people would be calling Vendzilla a "rightie" because he would be denying the "science" that said we were heading to the Ice Age.

It's just a thought.

All I know is "they" are fucking with the weather. Whether it be via HAARP, or big oil, or the defense department, or NASA, or however they are doing it, weather patterns are all fucked up. Summers the worst in memory, winters the worst in memory, summer in wintertime and winter in summertime. insane.

Meanwhile, I had a killer breakfast burrito today.

Thank goodness your memory over your life span isn't the actual historical facts over millions of years! :)

And I'm eating healthy oatmeal for breakfast. Get your shit together Mark! lol

The money's going to eventually have to come from somewhere. That much is clear and inarguable.

One caution though. Re: "The economy hanging by a thread" --- the US economy has seen an overall growth period over the last 5 quarters. The USD is stronger on the world market than it's been in nearly 10 years. These are things that seem to be conveniently left out of virtually every political argument currently going on on GFY. To me these are not signs of an economy hanging by a thread, nor are they indications of a bad sitting President.

Like the article suggests, either those (probably in industry) who benefit most by having properly repaired highways will cough up the difference, or (more likely) there will have to be a tax hike. Either way it's going to happen, because the more the US highway system degrades the higher the toll WILL be on your economy, in 100's if not 1000's of interesting ways. (higher vehicle repair costs and highr MVA fatalities not the least of it)

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: