> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>> >>>>They need to REDUCE the taxes they currently have on gas.
>
>> > Right, then the American consumer is so darn happy with the cheap gas
>> > he responds by doing what? Well, of course, he consumes more gas which
>> > in turn drives the price, and the profits of oil-rich countries (many
>> > of which we are spending huge amounts/$Bs of dollars wagging war on or
>> > trying to control.), back up.
>
>> I want the market to set the price of gas, not the government. If that
>> means it is $3.00/gallon or $1.00/gallon then so be it. Capitalism
>> works best when the laws of supply and demand are applied. If the
>> government want to get us away from oil then they could develop new
>> technologies for alternative energy sources and give it away to
>> companies willing to bring it to market. Don't inflate gasoline prices
>> to the point I have to ride a moped to get around. I'm not even going
>> to get into how unfair it would be to lower income people.
>
> The problem with letting the market set the price on oil is that
> nothing will happen until oil wells starting sucking air. Then
> there'll be a power grab (read major wars between the Middle East,
> China, US, Russia, etc.) to control the remaining reserves) and a
> scramble to *try* to come up with alternatives.... but by then it'll be
> too late and most of those who survive the war will be left sitting in
> the dark and walking. I say get the investment going NOW! Gas is
> already taxed, I say let them tax it more to give companies incentives
> to start searching for viable alternatives.
>
> And THEN, to compensate everyone (the rich included) for the higher
> price of gas, the government gives us other breaks on other taxes.
>
>
>> > Plus, cheap gas keeps anyone from investing in alternative fuel
>> > sources. It's a nice little cycle. And that's the main reason the
>> > oil-rich countries walk a tight-rope on prices -- high enough to make
>> > good money, but not too high to cause investment in alternatives.
>
>> I guess the free market system is working if they know they can't
>> totally rape us on oil prices. IMO, we will stop using oil only when
>> the clear majority of the people in the country want to use alternative
>> energy sources. Whether that results from economic, political and/or
>> environmental reasons is anyone's guess.
>
> See above. It'll end up being a big ugly war. A war that no one will
> win because all will be lost.
>
>> >>>>Gas tax hurts the people that can least afford it the most.
>
>> > Only if the government doesn't "redistribute" those dollars in the
>> > forms of compensation -- reduction of other taxes.
>
>> Income redistribution doesn't really solve anything. People on the
>> lower end of the economic ladder need to be given opportunities, not
>> endless handouts that make them dependent, IMHO, of course. Plus, I
>> don't trust the government to "redistribute" anything, whether it be
>> money or cheese.
>
> Mike, I'm not talking about only compensating the poor or the middle
> class or whoever. I'm saying compensating *everyone* with some form(s)
> of tax breaks for the increase in gas taxes.
>
>> >>The reason I am so passionate about lowering taxes, or at least keeping
>> >>them stagnant, is that we are taxed at incredible rates when all the
>> >>local, state and federal taxes are combined. Individually they don't
>> >>seem so bad but add them up and most of us would be shocked. The thing
>> >>is that many of these taxes are not based on income so the poor are hit
>> >>disproportionately hard. Hell, state governments even pray on people
>> >>through lotteries. Many of the people I see buying those tickets
>> >>haven't got the income to justify such an extravagant purchase. Do you
>> >>think the government cares that they are praying on the poor by
>> >>offering
>> >>lottery tickets? Granted, no one is forced to by a lottery ticket but
>> >>I
>> >>expect more from our elected leaders than to shamelessly take money
>> >>from
>> >>people that can't afford it.
>
>> > Aren't they required to print the odds of winning on every ticket? If
>> > folks can't do simple math, or use simple logic, they deserve their
>> > money to be ****ed away. But let's face the facts, most want a
>> > "simple" way to fortune.
>
>> If they do print the odds on the tickets I would wager the print is so
>> small you need a microscope to read it. It is true that many people are
>> just looking for the easy fortune. This is why we will always have a
>> segment of the population that is poor.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> They just don't want to work, period.
>
> Agreed, again.
>
>> This is why I have a problem with just handing out government assistance
>> without requiring results. There are a small group of people that will
>> make
>> a career from playing the system. It isn't fair to the taxpayer, or the
>> people that truly need assistance, to let these people be leaches. This
>> is
>> why, IMO, things like income redistribution doesn't work. It entices
>> people
>> to become dependent instead of self sufficient.
>
> And agreed again. But I'm not talking about gas taxing everyone and
> giving the proceeds to the poor or lazy. I'm talking about giving
> *everyone* other tax breaks for the added tax on fuel.
>
>> Let's face it there are many, many people who would be happy to take a
>> government handout over gainful employment. As the old saying goes,
>> "Whatever you subsidize your create more of it".
>
> And I'd be subsidzing the search for viable alternative fuel sources.
>
>> >>One day people will put all this together and the politicians will be
>> >>held accountable at the ballot box. It is happening gradually right
>> >>now. Why do you think the Republicans have retained the House, Senate
>> >>and more often than not the Presidency?
>
>> > They have big business and the religous right in their back pocket?
>> > Money + religion is tough to beat/defeat. Just ask Bin Laden.
>
>> Respectfully, this is where you are dead wrong. I vote Republican and
>> in no way fit the stereotype you just stated.
>
> Currently the Republican *base* is being driven by big business and the
> religous right. Others, like yourself, have joined the ranks because
> the Democrats currently have no message and no messenger.
>
>> I am self employed and
>> haven't been to church in years. The reason I vote Republican is
>> because for me there is no better alternative that stands a snowball's
>> chance in hell of winning an election.
>
> Mike, elections have become popularity contests. I don't buy for a
> minute that the Republicans have a lock on anything. All it takes is
> the "right candidate" and good PR/spin team around him/her to build an
> image and anyone could win tomorrow. It's just that right now Rove and
> company are the best PR/spin team around.
>
>> I don't care about any of the religious issues. I do care greatly about
>> conservative economic issues.
>
> The Bush team is anything but conservative on economics. In fact he's
> been getting drilled by conservative groups for his spending.
>
>> I am actually more Libertarian that anything. I just know that voting
>> Libertarian in today's world is a waste of my vote. One other thing I
>> know is that should liberals get their agenda enacted they will run this
>> country off a cliff economically and from a national security standpoint.
>
> Why is liberal considered a bad word? Because in my dictionary,
> liberal sounds pretty darn good.
>
>> Bush didn't get 60+ million votes because all the church's got the vote
>> out and all the corporate CEO's voted.
>
> He won because of what's going on in the Middle East. The folks on the
> fence didn't want to see a whole new team try to formulate a whole new
> game to win. They figured they didn't want to throw a monkey wrench in
> things... that it was better to let the current team see if they can
> finish/fix what they started.
>
>> He got them because a vast
>> majority of people are tired of having issues like gay marriage, gun
>> control, tax increases, etc. rammed down their throats.
>
> Personally, I think Clinton did a pretty darn good job with the
> economy. Taxes weren't out of control. He was fiscally
> responsible/conservative and had us running in the black. Bush on the
> other hand has us bleeding red ink, and it appears, for a long time to
> come. Gay marrige is hotter subject now than it has ever been. And as
> far as gun control, I don't think it's a big thing if someone has to
> wait 24 hours to be checked out for a criminal record/mental health
> issue before buying an AK-47, do you? But some seem to think doing
> that background check is the begining of a slippery slope to banning
> shotguns for quail hunting.



You really need a little more information on this subject.
The second amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting or shotguns.
Waiting periods are NOT about background checks. That has been covered
since 1998 by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
Or in the case of individuals who carry concealed weapons permits from one
or multiple states, they have already passed one or more stringent
background check. How many is enough? Should you have to retake your
drivers exam once a month? After all many more Americans die from
automobiles than guns.

Does your "no big thing" attitude apply to a person who already has one or
more guns? What practical difference does that person waiting to buy their
2nd, 3rd, or 4th gun make?

If you really wanted to do something about criminals with guns, you would
stop supporting the harassment of honest law abiding Americans, and go after
the criminals.
If a criminal wants a gun they will get it with or without these silly
little feel good infringements, and they do because they know there are no
serious ramifications if they get caught with a gun.

Law abiding Americans have an inalienable right to firearms, without a bunch
of thinly veiled excuses for infringing on that right.

Pro Second Amendment Americans are a huge block of voters.





>
>> The majority of
>> the people in this country hold conservative leaning views when it comes
>> to taxes, gay marriage, gun control, government intrusion in everyday
>> lives to name a few.
>
> See above. For the record, I'm not a proponent of gay marriage, but I
> see a problem with listing "gay marriage" and "intrusion in everyday
> lives" together.
>
>> Bush's votes were not from a legion of red-state rednecks. They were
>> from a > broad cross section of the country. He made percentage gains in
>> all ethnic
>> and gender groups from the 2000 election.
>
>> No political talking head gave him a chance if Kerry got more than 54
>> million votes. The point being is that what many think is a traditional
>> Republican vote just doesn't fit anymore. After the 2004 election it
>> should be clear that Republicans positions are more mainstream than
>> anyone thought possible.
>
> Bottom line: He's a war time president yet he barely won. Rove and
> company shouldn't get smug.
>
>> >>The biggest reason is they are the only party that is willing to cut
>> >>taxes.
>
>> > They're not cutting sh*t. They're building debt. Yeah, they give you a
>> > little tax break here and there, but they're paying for it with a check
>> > they don't have the funds for.
>
>> IMO, we basically have two choices. First is to lower taxes and run a
>> higher debt (BTW, our debt relative to GDP is better than any other
>> developed country) and the second is to have us taxed excessively and
>> still run up the deficit. Of these two, I'll take the first.
>
> I'll take the third. Get fiscally conservative and lower taxes.
>
>> If you expect Congress to control their spending then you're delusional.
>
> WHAT?! You mean all those fiscally conservative Republicans in
> Congress can't be trusted with our tax dollars?
>
>> At least lower taxes will fuel economic growth which in turn increases
>> tax
>> revenues. All excessive taxing will do is stagnate economic grow and
>> reduce tax revenue which will result in a perpetual downward spiral.
>
> Mike, you've taken the ball and ran it out of the stadium. I'm only
> saying to further tax gasoline to stimulate investment in alternative
> fuel sources... and that's all I'm saying.
>
>> >>Even they aren't doing it enough to suit most people. It is happening
>> >>here
>> >>where I live at the local level. People can't understand why there
>> >>property taxes are sky rocketing when inflation isn't. The expenses of
>> >>the local government aren't increasing 20% a year so why are their
>> >>local
>> >>taxes. Theaverage person is starting to see what is being done to them
>> >>from a tax standpoint. It may take a few more election cycles but I
>> >>believe there will be a major shift in the public's attitude toward how
>> >>they are taxed.
>
>> > Oh, it's coming. But unfortunately the debt will still need to be
>> > paid.
>
>> Not really. It will need to be "serviced". It will never be paid off.
>
> You're right, not at this rate.
>
>> >>Well, I feel better after that rant.
>
>> > Me too.
>
>> Feels good, huh?
>
> Yes, it does.
>
> Thanks for the conversation!
>
> Patrick
> '93 Cobra
>