ptah13 wrote:

Ok, so when you use too much of something, like cigarettes, the government raises taxes to discourage you....

I don't know about you other smokers; But, I'm about fucking fed up with supporting our failing school system.  But, of course, the people will all-ways vote against the interest of smokers.  You know, for the sake of their bastard off-spring.  Fuck every-body (Yeah, I'm in one of those moods)!

I really don't care what gas costs.  I am rich so it doesn't matter.

Fuck the middle class.

I’m wondering if the Transportation Department’s “surplus” funds were shifted into other programs the way “surplus” Social Security funds were.  If so, they should present the IOU’s they were given and try to collect on them.

ptah13 wrote:

Ok, so when you use too much of something, like cigarettes, the government raises taxes to discourage you.....

The whole entire complaint, during the "Bush-induced high gas gouging" last year was, "you're using too much gas with your gas-guzzling SUV's. It's all your fault, buy a Prius".

Now, because we are using "too little gas" (I thought that was  a good thing, to become less dependent on gas), the governments solution is, to RAISE GAS TAX????? What? When has that been the idea, use too little of something = raise taxes on it?

Or is it, "we can slip these taxes in now, while prices are low and nobody will notice!".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090102/ap_on_go_ot/gas_tax

Of course "the news" is selling us on the idea hook, line and sinker!

Soon, "the news" will start telling us how good the economy is getting and how it's safe to buy stock again... after-all... "Mission Accomplished", as far as they are concerned!

Well, at least the "idiot masses" listen to something.....

What do you mean by "Bush-induced high gas gouging"?  The federal government didn't benefit from the higher gas prices. 

As for increasing taxes on something whose demand has shrunk, demand on gas is fairly inelastic, and has already been voluntarily reduced.  Without major infrastructure changes people will just have to grin and bear it.  Having an extra 9 cents per gallon isn't going to have a huge stifling effect on gas demand, especially when the price of gas was almost double its current price about six months ago.   

Ultimately the bottom line is that we have the choice of either letting our transportation systems continue to deteriorate, increasing the federal gas tax, or finding an alternate means of raising the money (raise more taxes elsewhere).  Raising the gas tax puts the burden of raising the money on the people who use the service the most.

Not to step on your rant, though.  I hate tax hikes as much as the next guy.

Good point.

Fled wrote:

In fact, the government probably should force a minimum price of $4 or $4.50 per gallon, even if market price would be lower.  Much or all of the excess price imposed could be rebated, and none of it should be available for government expenditure outside of transportation and energy.

The gullibility and misplaced trust in government that Socialists display never ceases to amaze.

Dmtdust wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Fled wrote:

In fact, the government probably should force a minimum price of $4 or $4.50 per gallon, even if market price would be lower.  Much or all of the excess price imposed could be rebated, and none of it should be available for government expenditure outside of transportation and energy.

The gullibility and misplaced trust in government that Socialists display never ceases to amaze.

Yes, I have noticed that everytime they elect someone to put a damper on abortions, or promoting prayer.

Nearly everywhere except in the US, religion and Socialism go hand in hand.  If the government is going to control your finances, it helps to have a state church to preach the party line.

phreddy wrote:

The gullibility and misplaced trust in government that Socialists display never ceases to amaze.

Says our erstwhile Bushie, who still believes the WMD is somewhere in them thar hills.  Tell us, Phred, are these the same socialists who were hiding in the woodpile with the bomb-throwing radicals of Hyde Park, the ones who want to nationalize everything, even the popcorn, hairballs and gum wrappers that hide beneath the cushions on your couch???  No, they are just people who favor actually having an energy policy rather than pretending that the petroleum reserves are infinite.  I don't particularly trust government, but that is not really the point, is it?  Doing nothing is just lazy and stupid.  Laissez faire is not going to cut it. 

Oh screw it.  It;'s easier just to repeat the "drill, drill , drill" mantra, drink Butwiper and each a white bread manwich.

Of all the Socialisms to choose from, our Phwedd will vote for his National Socialism every time.

phreddy wrote:

Fled wrote:

Yeah, I see what you mean.  Like in China, Viet Nam, North Korea, Cuba, and all those socialist states.  Dunce.

All Communist countries, dunce.  See, the Commies aren't supposed to believe in gawd, whereas Socialists ...why the fuck am I trying to educate you?

*snicker*

phreddy wrote:

Fled wrote:

Yeah, I see what you mean.  Like in China, Viet Nam, North Korea, Cuba, and all those socialist states.  Dunce.

All Communist countries, dunce.  See, the Commies aren't supposed to believe in gawd, whereas Socialists ...why the fuck am I trying to educate you?

so the scandinavians?

and utterly ignored by the populace

tojo2000 wrote:

My point is that you still have no idea what the words "Socialism" and "Communism" mean.

And your point is on point.

He also does not seem to know that socialism was not borne of religion but rather despite it.  In fact, in 19th century England, many marxists decided that the term "communism" was too suggestive of catholic "communion" and so insisted that they be referred to as "socialists" instead.  As socialists entered electoral politics, like any other party or movement, they formed coalitions and alliances, and sometimes with certain religious factions.  Many other religious factions opposed socialism on doctrinal grounds.  Indeed, the biggest religious institutions have tended to oppose socialism, and many socialists were and are essentially atheists or a-religious.  To lump all "religion" together and say that it marched hand-in-hand with socialism is flat out wrong, whether is Tibet, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, South America or Europe.