More proof taxes = evil

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/14/eveningnews/main674120.shtml

The point is states like CA are considering taxing motorists on miles driven, because the proliferation of hybrids and other fuel saving technologies are cutting into their gasoline tax revenues.

Way to destroy any incentive we have to buy a fuel efficient car....

Government is an animal that will consume everything in sight if not kept in check by budget-growth-conscious legislators. CA has had a particular lack of those for years....

Boy, this really is the perfect circle, is it not?

The governement pushes and pushes for better MPG vehicles, and since the manufacturers do as they are told, and spend billions over the years in bettering MPG performance... a cost that is always passed on to the comsumer in some fashion (higher vehicle prices over time) ... fuel consumption goes down per vehicle... just like they wanted.

Now... since less fuel is used, they get less tax money on it... uh oh. So, the solution is to create yet another tax to make up for it.

So, short term and long term benifit to the typical citizen: Nothing. In fact, you lose out on the deal.

:blah:

I wonder how people are reacting on the Prius/Inisght/Whatever websites. :think:

I wish these liberals would make up their minds. They've been pushing the righteousness of driving hybrids and other fuel-sipping cars down our throats for years, now they realize they aren't making enough money off them so they have to shift their view again? :mad: I honestly would be laughing if this plan didn't have a chance to affect me.

The dirty little secret is that the consumer pays for EVERYTHING. Any tax you levy on a business gets built in to the cost of the good or service....in the end you end up paying it as part of your purchase.

Ad income tax, state income tax, property tax, gas tax, local occupational taxes, state sales tax, and dozens of other unique local things like special assessments and millage fees and you have an out of control government pig at the trough of the private citizen. I know I sound like a broken record to some but this is just ridiculous.

Here we have the one state that has championed environmentally friendly automobiles and high MPG cars and in the same breath they are totally destroying the personal, micro level incentive for making such a purchase. If they were not so addicted to taxation as a way to fund all their programs this would not be an issue.

I have a hard time believing Ahhnold would ever let this pass in CA. :confused:

I think this would absolutely crush the new car market...

Unless they plan to retro fit these milage monitoring devices to older cars to allow them to stay on the road, a lot of folks are going to simply hold on to their older cars to avoid paying this tax.

I would think, because of this, that the automakers would fight this idea tooth and nail.

Also, there are inherant flaws in this system. What if you are a farmer or other significant property owner, and a good portioon of your milage is on you own land... how do they differentiate?

What if I take my car to the drag strip? Can I deduct 1/4 mile for each run? :lol:

I don't have time to read the article but wouldn't it make more sense to simply increase the gas tax thereby encouraging even more fuel efficient vehicles and not adding another division of tax bureaucracy?

Hmm ok, so I will take my beater with a few 5 gal jugs to the gas station and fill them up come home and refuel. So it looks like I only drive 100 miles a year, oh well, must work from home ;) .

It always amazes me how many different ways politicians can think of to make us part with our money. I guess we should all just take public transportation.
Its like driving a rental car, pay per the mile, unbelievable.

I have a hard time believing Ahhnold would ever let this pass in CA. :confused:

I like Ahnod and a lot of what he's done out there, but his budget crisis fix was smoke and mirrors. They just borrowed a bunch of money against bonds to fund the government in the short term. They are still pinched for dollars in the long term in a bad way.

Taxes are going to have to go up massively in a state that already suffers from an 8% tax on income plus a 7% or so sales tax, and oppressively high home prices and therefore oppressively high property taxes, OR cut program funding massively, which the Dem controlled legislature will never go for. So, I expect them to raise taxes and maybe make a few token cuts.

The result will be a mass exodus (which has already begun, hence rapid growth in Nevada and Arizona) of any skilled, employable people.

Hmm ok, so I will take my beater with a few 5 gal jugs to the gas station and fill them up come home and refuel. So it looks like I only drive 100 miles a year, oh well, must work from home ;) .



:lol:

Another perfect loophole!

This reminds me of the cigarrette tax and the tobacco lawsuits. I personally cannot stand smoking, and it is unhealthy for sure, but if it is so evil as everyone tells us, why didn't they just ban it? Because the states are addicted to the cigarette tax.

Then you have the billions the cigarette companies are paying to the states as part of the settlement......

Take this bit of wisdom from a "conspiracy theorist"... :D

Government and big industry are intimately conjoined - always have been, always will be - despite what some would like to think. How so? Just look at the people that currently hold the highest offices in our government... GW - Oil Man/Energy Man (Arbusto Oil, Enron, and Halliburton), Cheney - oil man(Halliburton, KBR, and others), Condy Rice - oil chick (Chevron Oil). I can go on and on. Clinton's group was no different, just the industry was more tech-based than energy-based. This has always been the case - even good ol McNamara got the tap on the shoulder to leave the car business for big government - GM and Ford both have had their share of executive crossovers into politics.

So government will legislate that the poor wage earning bastard gets bled every chance they can do it. As long as it's "legal".

The topic of this thread is really no different than insurance on your car (at least in my state). Liability insurance used to be a privelidge for the wealthy - to ensure against loss. Government steps in and says that it is now mandatory for all licensed vehicles to carry liability at minimum. The next step was to regulate the insurance rates so that there could be no bickering about how much is paid.
So my state requires me to carry the insurance, and they also dictate what I will pay for it (provided I don't want to walk).
Yeah, THAT'S fair. :no: Ever hear of a monopoly? Aren't they illegal in the US?
I guess not so long as the government is the monopolistic leader in charge.
At least some sap of an insurance slaesman gets to take his slice of profit when he converts my government mandate into a private "for profit" sale. :rolleyes:

As for the policy in Cali - I guess the greedy bastages couldn't sit back and wait for a boat-load of folks to buy the hybrids before popping this little money making gimmick on 'em.
I hope it backfires and they don't sell a friggin' one until legislation blocks this hanessy of greed. :mad:

Take this bit of wisdom from a "conspiracy theorist"... :D



I saw this coming as soon as the words "monitoring devices" were uttered. :D

I'm with you for the most part on this one, but for pretty specific reasons. First, they are outright saying they want going to do it, so there's really nothing secret or behind the scenes so much. and secondly, this piece of equipment is dedicated for a specific reason, and offers no other benefit to the user.

You needed more proof that taxes are evil?

It comes down to this: ANY system in which the transaction is more complex than "pay your money, get your product or service" is going to be MORE costly and inefficient than the simple one:

Auto rebates
Health insurance
Government redistribution of tax revenue

Sometimes I wonder if the natural condition of humanity is bureaucracy, the way we like to overcomplicate everything.

Proud,your conspiracy theory is based on nothing but coincidence.

Of course big industry people end up in the government. Other than career politicians, that's your talent pool.

Where else do you think these administrations are going to get intelligent, talented people with proven records of results? You are just drawing lines to connect dots that shouldn't be connected.

The Bush/oil stuff is so old and played out. I've yet to see a legitimate, based in reality treatment of any real profiting by anyone in the oil industry from the Bush administration's policies. Besides, the gasoline refinery business is where the real gains have been made. Look at Valero, the largest domestic refiner. Their stock has doubled in the last year. Haliburton can't hold a candle to that. And FWIW I don't buy the Clinton/Tech stuff either. And how is Condi and oil girl? Provost of Stanford AND Oil gal? LOL

To a degree you always are going to have this connection because the talented people are at the top of one or the other. There's also lots of people that come out of government and go into industry.

But, the point you make about this proposal is valid. The most powerful tool in the economy is anything that enables you and me to save money. People will always choose to save money on purchases vs. spending more. Wanting to save the whales by buying a Prius is only going to work for a few. Once you can make it economically viable to by a hybrid, people will, en masse. This proposal just blows that all to hell.

You needed more proof that taxes are evil?

It comes down to this: ANY system in which the transaction is more complex than "pay your money, get your product or service" is going to be MORE costly and inefficient than the simple one:

Auto rebates
Health insurance
Government redistribution of tax revenue

Sometimes I wonder if the natural condition of humanity is bureaucracy, the way we like to overcomplicate everything.

Excellent points!

And the real stinker in the whole deal is that the import hybirds see significantly lower fuel economy in real life that that claimed.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Come to think of it... I've never had a GM car that didn't clock better that the mileage on the sticker. Not one. Even the SS, which has my foot stuck in the throttle body 90% of the time.

Boy, this really is the perfect circle, is it not?


You said it.

This is the very definition of evil in my book :mad:, They basically force people to buy higher milage cars, then tax because of the consiquences of that. I hope this new tax is tax deductable.

How much longer before people turn on the government.

I get a kick out of how everytime something like this comes up, how the word Libreal comes up & how it takes all of about 3 seconds before someone starts decrying all taxes as evil and the destruction of mankind. :lol:

First, re-read that article. In the rabid parinoia, seems this part was completly missed:

"they may be considering a replacement for the gas tax altogether, replacing it with something called "tax by the mile."

That means, INSTEAD OF in case the point was missed.


Secondly, once again, everything has a price tag. If the government is paying for it, you are paying for it. Whether it's a couple of billion keeping roads and bridges from caving in, or spending 82 billion dollars per every 6 months maintaining order in Iraq. We are footing the bill. Period.

Finally, there's more to be concerned about than paying for miles driven instead of the fuel tax. Unless you are a treehugger who bought a Prius, or some other electric or hybrid car, it doesn't effect you. Right now, the more gas you use, the more fuel you use. The more fuel you use, the more you pay in fuel tax. It's about time Hybrids and Electric cars loose their special status & be charged for the roads they use, just like I do.

The whole response to this is pretty misguided. I never thought I'd see the day where anyone here would stand up for the Greens (as opposed to that term, "Liberals") who want everyone driving electric EV1s, and their lobbyists who pushed for tax exemptions and breaks as incentives to make people buy them. :lol:

If anyone here should be bent over this, it's me. Not only as a Californian, but as someone who puts on in excess of 30,000 miles per year on my car, and the owner of a couple of cars that aren't exactly high CAFE models.

I see the mileage idea as an equilizer. If anything, it sounds like something that came from someone fed up with special the status electric & hybrids are getting. :p

My advice, go back and read the article again without this rabid "anti-tax" paranoia that seems to be missing when business engage in questionable moves, like doubling the price of gas in just 6 months.

The only issue that even IS an issue is privacy concerns (the proposed system is visioned to communicate with your odometer). Those of you with cars that don't have computers that talk to the filling station (probally something like 10 million in Cali) means there's a whole lot of work to be done before this even makes it anywhere near the legislature.

G-man...

Taxes = bad.

Liberals tend to tax more than conservatives.

Therefore, liberals = more bad.

Sorry to be so simplistic, but liberals pretty much earned that reputation.

"they may be considering a replacement for the gas tax altogether, replacing it with something called "tax by the mile."

That means, INSTEAD OF in case the point was missed.

You are right, the mileage tax would supplant the fuel tax to maintain roads. HOWEVER. Do you really think the government would then go so far to repeal the fuel tax? No, that money would simply go to another program.

Taxes never go away. EVER.

Lets rant a little Guy....

Methinks thou dost protest too much. What's with the reflexive defensiveness?

I realize this tax would be in lieu of the gas tax, but still doesn't make it right. If I have a lean year and the money doesn't come in, I have to deal with it.

When does government EVER live within its means. That's not a partisan statement anymore either. Neither party seems too concerned with spending these days.

How would this be collected? The collection mechanism for the tax tax is extremely simple...collected at point of sale. What happens when you get a bill in teh mail for your mileage tax, or you go to renew your registration and they tack on the mileage tax? You are going to have a lot of people not able to pay.

Fixed fee taxes like gas tax are regressive, i.e. they hurt low earners more than high earners. CA would be sticking it to the working man with this proposal even moreso than the current gas tax does. That's not very liberal last time I checked the definition....

Where was that parinoia when oil companies doubled the price of gas in just 6 months?

I've been argueing with people about that for a long time and I get the following responses

- "it's still cheaper than back in (insert era with highest prices)

- "well....inflation..bla bla bla"

gas went up 100% in about 4 years. avg inflation rate is about 2%, and with economies of scale gas prices should get cheaper every year (fixed for inflation of course) OPEC and Bush's oil buddies have us all by the you know what.


Liberals tend to tax more than conservatives.

Therefore, liberals = more bad.

Sorry to be so simplistic, but liberals pretty much earned that reputation.

correction: liberals use to tax more than conservative. The current Gov't is a tax hungry monster, I really wouldn't call them conservative. conservatives aren't all about the spend spend spend like the guys we have.

G-man...

Taxes = bad.

Liberals tend to tax more than conservatives.

Therefore, liberals = more bad.

Sorry to be so simplistic, but liberals pretty much earned that reputation.

Then there's the flip side of it:

High deficits = bad.

Conservatives run up deficits more than liberals.

Therefore conservatives = more bad.

At the end of the day, both will pick your pocket to please their own powerbase.

Bottom line is that these terms are meaningless and ridiculous.

Our Governor (as well as New York's and even ole Rudy Gulianni) are seen as a staunch conservatives in San Francisco, but in most of the south they would be seen as flaming liberals.

Our Governor (as well as New York's and even ole Rudy Gulianni) are seen as a staunch conservatives in San Francisco, but in most of the south they would be seen as flaming liberals.

I see all 3 as moderates, a group that is always overlooked by black and white thinkers.

How do you think the Governator will handle this issue, he seems like he would be on the side of the motorist. You as a Californian should have more insight than me on this.

Then there's the flip side of it:

High deficits = bad.

Conservatives run up deficits more than liberals.

Therefore conservatives = more bad.

At the end of the day, both will pick your pocket to please their own powerbase.

Bottom line is that these terms are meaningless and ridiculous.

Our Governor (as well as New York's and even ole Rudy Gulianni) are seen as a staunch conservatives in San Francisco, but in most of the south they would be seen as flaming liberals.

FDR, Kennedy and Reagan all ran up huge deficits. FDR's were BY FAR larger than either Reagan's or GB's when taken as a percentage of GDP. We survived. I'd rather see a deficit starve the beast than shell out even more in taxes than I pay now. Basically, between SS, state and fed taxes and everything else I spend a LOT of my year working for the government. I'd like to be doing less of that in the future.

I disagree that the terms are meaningless or ridiculous. I mean, let's be honest here, the Dems just made Dean their party chair. Who do they think they're fooling with the "we're not liberals" nonsense??? Dean goes any further to the left and he'll fall over.

You can bet your bottom dollar that if Kerry would have won, you'd be paying more in taxes in the following year than you will now. Sorry, the Dems are reaping what they've sown, and I see no issue with calling a spade a spade.

As I identify positively with the idea that government is too large and takes too much of my money, I'll go with the guys that tend to want less of my money - and they're conservatives.

Show me a liberal who will demand less of my earnings and I would seriously entertain voting for him/her. Until that day comes, it's pretty clear that if I want to keep more of what I earn I'll have to keep pulling for the conservatives.

BTW - I'm not pleased AT ALL with GB's spending.



PS - Dean for party chair and Hillary in '08. Good choices there... for the Republicans.

The point is states like CA are considering taxing motorists on miles driven, because the proliferation of hybrids and other fuel saving technologies are cutting into their gasoline tax revenues.



This is total nonsense. There aren't enough hybrid and diesel cars on the highway to significantly impact total fuel consumption figures. Even if the we accept best-case-scenario for future "fuel saving technologies," the overall number of vehicles on the road will continue to increase. In short, any supposed gains in efficiency will be more than offset by total miles driven.

Mileage based taxes on "vehicle use" are tools to combat traffic congestion, pure and simple. California voters are unwilling to accept the environmental impact of new highway construction (or even increases in the number of lane. California voters are also unwilling to accept hikes in car registration fees. I suppose that leaves the alternative of mileage based fees for vehicle use - an idea that's being taken very seriously in the UK.

Is it any wonder that people are leaving California for Nevada, Utah and Arizona?

This is total nonsense. There aren't enough hybrid and diesel cars on the highway to significantly impact total fuel consumption figures.


You're missing the point that today's "regular" vehicles get 2 to 3 times the gas milage of cars that were built 20 years ago.

You are right, the mileage tax would supplant the fuel tax to maintain roads. HOWEVER. Do you really think the government would then go so far to repeal the fuel tax?

Honestly, yes. Alot changed out here with the recall election. Besides, I'm not looking at this from a parinoid position, I simply reading the article and basing my opinion on what's written.

Lets rant a little Guy....

Methinks thou dost protest too much. What's with the reflexive defensiveness?

Bad week at work...is it over yet? :lol:

I realize this tax would be in lieu of the gas tax, but still doesn't make it right. If I have a lean year and the money doesn't come in, I have to deal with it.

When does government EVER live within its means. That's not a partisan statement anymore either. Neither party seems too concerned with spending these days.

How would this be collected? The collection mechanism for the tax tax is extremely simple...collected at point of sale. What happens when you get a bill in teh mail for your mileage tax, or you go to renew your registration and they tack on the mileage tax? You are going to have a lot of people not able to pay.

Fixed fee taxes like gas tax are regressive, i.e. they hurt low earners more than high earners. CA would be sticking it to the working man with this proposal even moreso than the current gas tax does. That's not very liberal last time I checked the definition....

I agree with alot of what you said. However, the thing is that gas taxes are already fixed fees, regressive or not.


My burning issue here is all the incentives going into Hybrids & Electrics. My position is let these things stand on their own & let the market decide (not what you'd expect out of me, huh? ;) ).

If someone wants to make a point to buy an electric or hybrid, then they should. But why should I use public roads and these other vehicles use public roads, yet I'm the one paying for them? Why a Hybrid or Electric sedan with just one person in it zip along the carpoll lane (another dumb idea IMHO) when someone in a Miata has to sit in traffic like everyone else?

I'm all for saving our resources, but between subsidies for these vehicles, tax breaks for these vehicles, free road usage for these vehicles, and carpool lane use for these vehicles, enough is enough already. :rolleyes:

I don't see this as a issue of politics or labels. There has to be funding for roads, everyone should pay their fair share, that's all.

Wow. This thread is really refreshing. I suppose everyone in the thread except for guinM would rather not pay taxes and not have any roads to drive on. Saying that taxes are evil or bad is a display of ignorance, pure and simple.

I see all 3 as moderates, a group that is always overlooked by black and white thinkers.

How do you think the Governator will handle this issue, he seems like he would be on the side of the motorist. You as a Californian should have more insight than me on this.

Arnold is an enviromentalist, but he's also reasonable & pro-public. I don't think this will fly w/ him.

FDR, Kennedy and Reagan all ran up huge deficits. FDR's were BY FAR larger than either Reagan's or GB's when taken as a percentage of GDP. We survived. I'd rather see a deficit starve the beast than shell out even more in taxes than I pay now. Basically, between SS, state and fed taxes and everything else I spend a LOT of my year working for the government. I'd like to be doing less of that in the future.

No disagreement there. But Clinton ran surpluses & Johnson reaped the benefits of Kennedy's tax cuts in the mid 60s.

I disagree that the terms are meaningless or ridiculous. I mean, let's be honest here, the Dems just made Dean their party chair. Who do they think they're fooling with the "we're not liberals" nonsense??? Dean goes any further to the left and he'll fall over.

Actually, Dean was a moderate Vermont governor. He was a fiscal conservative and a social moderate before he went national. Then he went a bit dovish on us.

If Denmocrats wanted to go far left Liberal, they could have gone with someone like Nancy Pelosi. :eek:

You can bet your bottom dollar that if Kerry would have won, you'd be paying more in taxes in the following year than you will now. Sorry, the Dems are reaping what they've sown, and I see no issue with calling a spade a spade.

Again, this is a stereotype. His policy was to suspend Bush's tax cut to those earning over $200,000 per year. If you make over $200K per year, you'd pay more..... I'd probally also ask you to adopt me. ;)



BTW - I'm not pleased AT ALL with GB's spending.


That is the sole issue I have with "W"! I don't mind spreading democracy to the middle east, he's done a bang up job with terrorism, he's served as a counterbalence on alot of the excesses of society, and he is genuinely unprejudiced with other races. But the thing that just floors me is that he has never vetoed a spending bill, and created deficits big enough to get the Feds to start hiking intrest rates, which isn't exactly the way to boost purchases.

FDR, Kennedy and Reagan all ran up huge deficits. FDR's were BY FAR larger than either Reagan's or GB's when taken as a percentage of GDP. We survived. I'd rather see a deficit starve the beast than shell out even more in taxes than I pay now. Basically, between SS, state and fed taxes and everything else I spend a LOT of my year working for the government. I'd like to be doing less of that in the future.


For the record, Congress controls spending. The president only submits a suggested budget. FWIW Reagan submitted a balanced budget to Congress every year of his Presidency. But, congress doesn't like cuts (as we can see by the reaction to Bush's new budget) because somebody's bridge or pork project always gets chopped. The only power the president has over the budget is the veto.

And on a topic somebody else brought up. Price of oil does not = price of gas all the time. Gasoline refiner Valero has seen its stock price DOUBLE in the last year. That's not big oil at all, its big refinement. Supply is tight globally as China's demand has skyrocketed, yet somehow this is all Bush's fault for padding the pockets of his oil buddies. The oil companies aren't making off like bandits in all this, its the OPEC countries reaping the greatest gains from the high oil prices.

Funny though, we finally have a wave of hybrids hitting that could reduce emissions, reduce consumption and reduce foreign oil dependence, yet some do gooder politicians can't do without the tax money and in all of that SOME people here have succeeded in making even that Bush's fault.

I often wonder why Liberals are so afraid of being called liberals? I don't shy away from the Conservative label, in fact I'm proud of it. Liberals want to be called "progressives" instead.

And Guy, Rudy and Arnold are moderates here and moderates in CA. If you guys really all thought Arnold was a true blue Conservative he wouldn't have stood a chance getting elected. That much was obvious.

A Conservative counters deficits in spending with program and benefit cuts... A liberal counters them with tax increases...

Taxes, in all forms, are a nessacary evil for our world to function as it does. Howver, I, and at least a few others on this board have a slight problem paying the government nearly a quarter of what we earn, with the prospect of some Washington democrat trying to make it so we pay more as we make more. Thats just not right. It stifles creativity and innovation, and makes people want to stay where they're at, rather than earn more, and contribute more to the economy.

And Guy, Rudy and Arnold are moderates here and moderates in CA. If you guys really all thought Arnold was a true blue Conservative he wouldn't have stood a chance getting elected. That much was obvious.

Of course all are moderates. That's why I used them to demostrate why I feel terms are meaningless.

All support abortion rights and gay rights. Enough to get them branded conservative with some people. And up in San Fran, anyone who even mentions fiscal responsibility over pet programs giving the homeless better apartments than I can afford over useless pet programs for the homeless (full medical coverage in San Fran, I kid you not) they are a red meat conservative.

Point is that it depends where you throw your hat and where your priorities are.

Wow. This thread is really refreshing. I suppose everyone in the thread except for guinM would rather not pay taxes and not have any roads to drive on. Saying that taxes are evil or bad is a display of ignorance, pure and simple.

Yeah... that's it.

I don't want roads.

I got an idea...

Since you apparently have no issue with the amount of taxes you pay, and feel we all should be paying more, how about you just write a check to the government for an extra $2000 this year? You can do that, you know... just make it out to the Treasury.

You know, do a little more for your country and put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is, instead of MY money where YOUR mouth is.

No disagreement there. But Clinton ran surpluses & Johnson reaped the benefits of Kennedy's tax cuts in the mid 60s.

A strong case can be made that Clinton:

1) Inherited a robust economy from the first Bush and Reagan - particularly because of Reagan's tax cuts.

2) Indisputably inherited a financial windfall from the fall of the Soviet Union... due to good ol' RR's laying the smack down on them economically.



Actually, Dean was a moderate Vermont governor. He was a fiscal conservative and a social moderate before he went national. Then he went a bit dovish on us.

A "bit"? Ghandi would've probably kicked ass in Iraq first.



If Denmocrats wanted to go far left Liberal, they could have gone with someone like Nancy Pelosi. :eek:

Trust me, the Hillary and Dean duo is left enough to ensure they and the Dem. party both go down in flames in 2008.

The Republicans could run Satan himself in 2008 and beat Hillary. I can hear the voters now:

"Sure he's the Prince of Darkness and all... but he's better than Hillary."



Again, this is a stereotype. His policy was to suspend Bush's tax cut to those earning over $200,000 per year. If you make over $200K per year, you'd pay more..... I'd probally also ask you to adopt me. ;)

PUH-LEEEZE. If the truth were ONLY people making more than $200,000 a year were going to see increased taxes I'll eat a torque converter.



That is the sole issue I have with "W"! I don't mind spreading democracy to the middle east, he's done a bang up job with terrorism, he's served as a counterbalence on alot of the excesses of society, and he is genuinely unprejudiced with other races. But the thing that just floors me is that he has never vetoed a spending bill, and created deficits big enough to get the Feds to start hiking intrest rates, which isn't exactly the way to boost purchases.

Agreed. Gotta lower the spending.


We're probably a little closer politically than first indicated. I tend to be an economically moderate, socially conservative, and fiscally conservative.

I suppose everyone in the thread except for guinM would rather not pay taxes and not have any roads to drive on.

Hello... I did just by a Colorado Z71.....as in Z71 off road package :D ;)

I often wonder why Liberals are so afraid of being called liberals? I don't shy away from the Conservative label, in fact I'm proud of it. Liberals want to be called "progressives" instead.
You can bet your bottom dollar that if Kerry would have won, you'd be paying more in taxes in the following year than you will now. Sorry, the Dems are reaping what they've sown, and I see no issue with calling a spade a spade.

Not all Democats are liberals, and not all liberals are Democats. Same goes for Republicans and conservative. I sometimes wish the moderates would just join forces and run them both out of town :D

I don't mind spreading democracy to the middle east, he's done a bang up job with terrorism.

guionM - Me and the latest CIA report would have to disagree with you on Terrorism. "W" is doing more harm than good, CAI reports Al Queda is bigger than ever and the Middle East hates us even more than they did before. His admins intelligence failure is also responsible for my state being short 2 skyscrapers. On top of that, he took the good will the rest of the world gave us after 9/11 and turned it into anti-americanism like we've never seen. You don't stop terrorism by pissing people off.

You don't stop terrorism by pissing people off.

I disagree.

I think you stop terrorism by killing terrorists, which tends to piss them off.

I disagree.

I think you stop terrorism by killing terrorists, which tends to piss them off.

that is true and not true.

Killing terrorist only stops the current terrorist, it doesn't stop terrorism. You need to take out terrorist leaders and funders, but it is best to do it in a non public way. Send in CIA ops and Delta force guys, terrorize the terrorists. You can't just bomb up and down the country side killing civilians while the terrorist hide.

If you have termites are you going to burn the house down to get ride of them?

If you have termites are you going to burn the house down to get ride of them?

Well... making a household pest equivalent to a group of folks who kill defenseless civillians for giggles is kind of stretching it, but...

I guess it depends on how bad the termite problem is.

The other problem with the analogy is that it doesn't take into account state-sponsors of terrorism like Iran and Syria. Personally, I'm all in favor or a few Arc-Light strikes to get their full and undivided attention.

that is true and not true.

Killing terrorist only stops the current terrorist, it doesn't stop terrorism.
It's a good start though.

You need to take out terrorist leaders and funders, but it is best to do it in a non public way. Send in CIA ops and Delta force guys, terrorize the terrorists.
I wouldn't be surprised if a Delta Force operator hadn't just double tapped a badguy in the forehead, somewhere in the world, while I was writing this sentence. In a "non-public way" of course.

You can't just bomb up and down the country side killing civilians while the terrorist hide.
Maybe give our guys more credit than that. Seriously.

If you have termites are you going to burn the house down to get ride of them?
KILL the termites, save the house.

Since you apparently have no issue with the amount of taxes you pay, and feel we all should be paying more, how about you just write a check to the government for an extra $2000 this year? You can do that, you know... just make it out to the Treasury.

You know, do a little more for your country and put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is, instead of MY money where YOUR mouth is.
No that is the entire problem. The "old timers" on the whole seems to have no problem with spending (besides lip service), and yet don't want to pay for it. In a sense you are making me pay an extra whatever years from now when it is time to pay off the interest.

In short, you may stop whining about taxes and cease making silly hypocritical statements such as "pay my taxes for me, cause it is good for the country."

In short, you may stop whining about taxes and cease making silly hypocritical statements such as "pay my taxes for me, cause it is good for the country."

His point was that we have too many taxes levied on us as it is, and need more like we need a 4 cylinder FWD Camaro, not that he wants you to pay his taxes.

If this passed in my state, I'd buy a Hummer. If I'm going to be taxed by the mile, I'm going to get the best-damned value per mile that I can.

His admins intelligence failure is also responsible for my state being short 2 skyscrapers.

Uh, in Bush's defense 9/11 was not planned in 9 months. Clinton struck at al-Queda exactly once during his 8 years in office. Seems our bad terrorism intelligence goes back decades, not just years.

If we've ever learned anything about the USA while we've been alive, it's that we don't care much for what the world thinks about us. We have to do what we feel is best for us, and what we feel will best protect our lives and our interests. For God's sake, should we really care what France thinks of our foreign policy? Just wait until something happens to those whiny pantywaists again...we'll probably be their best friends in their eyes. :rolleyes: People are going to hate us no matter what we do...that is the price we pay for being the most powerful country in the world both economically and militarily.

WOW this thread has gotten off topic. :lol:

"His admins intelligence failure is also responsible for my state being short 2 skyscrapers."

HINT: Campaign '04 is over. The voters heard this crap all last year and made a clear choice.

You're missing the point that today's "regular" vehicles get 2 to 3 times the gas milage of cars that were built 20 years ago.

Actually, the opposite is true. Look it up. Not too many SUV's back in '85.

I'm worried that the governments response to a decreasing tax revenue base is to track and monitor people.

They could just increase the gas tax. They'd get the exact same result. They'd get more money, people would drive less and everyone would still move out of California.

Funny thing is, if you look at any government scheme to track and monitor you, there is inevitably another method that will yield the EXACT same result with less beauracracy and no invasion of your privacy. The most worrisome thing of all is that most people just go along with the government propoganda and don't even realize a non-invasive solution even exists.

We're probably a little closer politically than first indicated. I tend to be an economically moderate, socially conservative, and fiscally conservative.

I don't doubt it. I'd consider myself a fiscal conservative, a social libertarian, and probally would be considered an internationalist.

Fiscal conservative? Live & let live outlook? Imperialist? Doesn't believe in breaks for alternative fueled & electric vehicles? Non-treehugging performance car lover? Living in California?

Oh my God..impossible! :lol:

It's a good start though.

Killing terrorist is a good thing, but it is only a short term solution, we need to stop terrorism, and stop peoples desire attack us.


I wouldn't be surprised if a Delta Force operator hadn't just double tapped a badguy in the forehead, somewhere in the world, while I was writing this sentence. In a "non-public way" of course.

I'm sure a ton of secret missions have already gone down, I've read about some of the CIA stuff in afganistan and its crazy. More money should be spent fighting that way. Our actions need to stay out of international press too, "oops...the Saudi princes plane just blew up in mid air, must have been an AirBus defect ;) "


Maybe give our guys more credit than that. Seriously.

It just seems that a lot of people want to fight a 21st century war with 1940's methods.

If this passed in my state, I'd buy a Hummer. If I'm going to be taxed by the mile, I'm going to get the best-damned value per mile that I can.

I agree there is no incentive for buying a green friendly car with that tax.

Uh, in Bush's defense 9/11 was not planned in 9 months. Clinton struck at al-Queda exactly once during his 8 years in office. Seems our bad terrorism intelligence goes back decades, not just years.

If we've ever learned anything about the USA while we've been alive, it's that we don't care much for what the world thinks about us. We have to do what we feel is best for us, and what we feel will best protect our lives and our interests.

read the 9/11 commision report, The Bush admin blew it many many many times. As far as caring what the world thinks that attitude is fine if you don't want rest of the world to buy American products. would you do bussiness with someone you consider a di¢k?

"His admins intelligence failure is also responsible for my state being short 2 skyscrapers."

HINT: Campaign '04 is over. The voters heard this crap all last year and made a clear choice.

NYC only went 17% to "W", Washington DC went only 9% to him. 9/11 cities made their choice clear. Are you saying Americans should we only question those that govern them once every 4 years? That doesn't seem like the American way, that is more of the communist way.

.
.
.
back to the topic of gas just imagine how many people will border jump to buy gas in the next state should something like this pass in that state and not the nieghboring.

"NYC only went 17% to "W", Washington DC went only 9% to him. 9/11 cities made their choice clear. Are you saying Americans should we only question those that govern them once every 4 years? That doesn't seem like the American way, that is more of the communist way."

What I meant by the quote is that the time for trying to sway people's minds over 9/11 is over. People have made up their minds. It's time to move on.

Re-arguing all of this is pointless. It's over. Give it a rest. You're not winning hearts and minds here. Talking politics in a fuel economy debate is unavoidable, but Bush-bashing isn't going to help the discussion one bit.

It just seems that a lot of people want to fight a 21st century war with 1940's methods.





I don't know about that, I think we're using some very innovative tactics....across the board.

"NYC only went 17% to "W", Washington DC went only 9% to him. 9/11 cities made their choice clear. Are you saying Americans should we only question those that govern them once every 4 years? That doesn't seem like the American way, that is more of the communist way."

What I meant by the quote is that the time for trying to sway people's minds over 9/11 is over. People have made up their minds. It's time to move on.

what do you mean by move on? people should just except gov't incompentance? Should we brush 9/11 under the rug and pretend it never happened, or learn from the mistakes? If the government was private industy a lot of people would have been fired a long time ago.

Thomas Jefferson said a few things that a lot of people should think about

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson

"A little rebellion now and then...is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government." - Thomas Jefferson

I don't know about that, I think we're using some very innovative tactics....across the board.

I wasn’t talking about the technology used (USA has some bad @ss high tech toys) I was talking more about strategy and peoples mind sets. I see it more in older folks and those that don't keep up with current events. A lot of people have a brut force, nuke the world mentality when in reality things need to be done a lot more cleanly and surgically. World is different now and the enemy isn't as clear as it was in the old days of war. It's no longer bomb county XYZ, it's stop and distory groups A, B, and C that are working out of 30 different countries including the USA

Talking politics in a fuel economy debate is unavoidable, but Bush-bashing isn't going to help the discussion one bit.

I'm not Bush-bashing, I have no problems with him and fuel economy, Me and bush both agree hydrogen is the future. I'm also very glad he supports the mission to mars. I think that will help the auto industry BIG TIME with new advancements in battery and H tech that will need to be developed. No politician will ever do everything right or please everyone.

"what do you mean by move on? people should just except gov't incompentance? Should we brush 9/11 under the rug and pretend it never happened, or learn from the mistakes? If the government was private industy a lot of people would have been fired a long time ago."

This is an attempt to re-argue the whole issue. As far as I'm concerned, 9/11 was BY FAR, a result of the Clintons failures, more than anything else. Plus, the dems stonewalled the appointments of Bush's cabinet, thus delaying his effect on national policy and oversight.

So, Do you see? We've argued this. What do you really, truely hope to gain now by continuing the same old arguments?

I have a feeling this is going to get locked before to long... :eek:

Wow. This thread is really refreshing. I suppose everyone in the thread except for guinM would rather not pay taxes and not have any roads to drive on. Saying that taxes are evil or bad is a display of ignorance, pure and simple.

No, its not. Taxes are bad, period. They are ALWAYS a drag on the economy. ALWAYS.

Yet, at least some taxes are necessary for road building, defense, etc. That doesn't mean they aren't bad, they are just necessary.

Ever here of a necessary evil? Ideally we would have zero taxation. That's not possible, so we have to put up with a certain level. I happen to believe we are well above that certain level because government has grown almost unchecked as a percentage of total GDP for decades.

Even when the money goes to do good things, taxes have negative effects on economic activity. its a drag on the system because its always an artificial inflater of prices.

Say you are going to wash my car for me for $10. Now, say you have to pay a sales tax on that transaction, like retailers do. Since consumers pay ALL taxes, you just pass that along and now my car wash costs, lets say $12.50, just for the sake of argument.

Now I was willing to pay $10, but I may not be willing to pay $12.50. Out of 100 car washes, you might have 20% that decide its not worth $12.50. YOu have just lost 20 potential customers due to this added cost. So you can see, taxation depresses economic activity, and that in the end is bad for the little guy, because he's always the first laid off.

So yes we need some taxation to do essential things, but as taxation goes it is imperative it be kept as minimal as possible so economic growth stays high and unemployment low.

Guy, go back and look at the data. Clinton did run surpluses toward the end of his term. How did he do it?

1. Raising taxes. the 1993 tax increase was the largest ever in the history of America.

2. He was blessed with an incredible economy. That economy GREW us out of the deficits. The reason we are running deficits now is not the spending per se, althought that is a part of it, but when the stock market corrected in 2000 and then the terror attacks in 2001 it basically knocked the economy back a couple rungs on the ladder, and tax collections dropped. Most notably capital gains collections went into the toilet, because nobody was making any money on stocks anymore. Clinton's suggested budgets spent like a druken sailor, don't you remember all the laundry lists of programs in every state of the union address? The GOP controlled congress kept some of it in check, but do you remember the government shutdown?

That was the GOP trying to control spending and Clinton wouldn't have it. He successfully demagogued the GOP and they had to relent to his budget.

Its a flawed approach to give a president too much credit or too much blame for the economy, this is a free market after all, not a command and control system.

No, its not. Taxes are bad, period. They are ALWAYS a drag on the economy. ALWAYS.

Yet, at least some taxes are necessary for road building, defense, etc. That doesn't mean they aren't bad, they are just necessary.

Ever here of a necessary evil? Ideally we would have zero taxation. That's not possible, so we have to put up with a certain level. I happen to believe we are well above that certain level because government has grown almost unchecked as a percentage of total GDP for decades.

...and to top it off Gov't isn't much better with spending and handling money than your avg. crack head. I work for NY state and is it all the time, it is amazing the stuff they spend money. Most divisions or groups get an annual budget and have to "use it or loose it". If you are given $XXX and only use 90% of that, the next year the big guys look at that and say your division doesn't need all the money it is getting, they see it as surplus they can take back in the following years. So come the end of the fiscal year it is like Xmas if you didn't already spend your money. you have to spend it before they can take it back.

I assume I don't have to tell you guys about state road crews? You know, 1 guy working 3 guys watching, all making $19/hr. The solution with gov'ts is to trim fat and increase efficiency, not raise taxes. At least in the south west you guys can hire the Mexicans for $3/hr. for manual labor.

Private industry can do twice the work for half the money.

Private industry can do twice the work for half the money.

:usa:

Might as well throw in my two cents on most of these issues, ive spent enough time reading the whole thread already.

About the miles driven tax-While my initial knee jerk reaction to this was that it was absolute insanity for the govt to do this, after thinking about it for a little bit, it still seems bad, but not as bad as I initially thought. While it is stupid to put all this money into research and incentive to buy the cars, then take away some incentive to buy the car, its not THAT bad. While you are still being taxed on the same basis for driving one mile as someone with a Hummer is being taxed, you are STILL using way less fuel that he is. So why you are being taxed equally for miles driven, you are still payin way less for miles driven, by way of using less gas for those miles.

Taxes in general- I hate taxes like almost every person out there, unfortunately they are very necessary. Our roads, our civil servants, our beautiful national parks and forests, and most importantly to me(for many reasons) is that our military is payed for by YOU AND ME. Personally, i wish we would get out of Iraq for many reasons, but with us there, we are paying through the nose for it. Granted, we dont feel it directly, but we will eventually. Personally ive never seen why tax breaks are the god send that everyone makes them out to be. With Bushs WONDERFUL tax break, whenever the hell that happened, me and my family got back something like a couple hundred dollars. But what did that couple hundred dollars do for us? Not that much. What did that couple hundred dollars, multiplied by the millions in this country(not even counting the exponential increase in return for the filthy rich), do? It brought is into debt way more and forced us to make cuts in programs that should not be cut, ever. And subsuquently, some of our brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers and friends in Iraq and Afganistan were not properly equipped with what they needed. Many died as a result of this. I would gladly have given back those couple hundred if it meant that ONE soldier had been saved because he had the right body armor.

Back on topic.

The proposed mileage tax in California would replace the existing gas tax on each gallon of gas sold in California. If you drive an SUV or similar vehicle that is less fuel efficient you'll pay the same amount as the guy driving that 4-cylinder econobox based on how much you drive.

Call me crazy, but I think the Governator would support that in a heartbeat.

Might as well throw in my two cents on most of these issues, ive spent enough time reading the whole thread already.

About the miles driven tax-While my initial knee jerk reaction to this was that it was absolute insanity for the govt to do this, after thinking about it for a little bit, it still seems bad, but not as bad as I initially thought. While it is stupid to put all this money into research and incentive to buy the cars, then take away some incentive to buy the car, its not THAT bad. While you are still being taxed on the same basis for driving one mile as someone with a Hummer is being taxed, you are STILL using way less fuel that he is. So why you are being taxed equally for miles driven, you are still payin way less for miles driven, by way of using less gas for those miles.

Taxes in general- I hate taxes like almost every person out there, unfortunately they are very necessary. Our roads, our civil servants, our beautiful national parks and forests, and most importantly to me(for many reasons) is that our military is payed for by YOU AND ME. Personally, i wish we would get out of Iraq for many reasons, but with us there, we are paying through the nose for it. Granted, we dont feel it directly, but we will eventually. Personally ive never seen why tax breaks are the god send that everyone makes them out to be. With Bushs WONDERFUL tax break, whenever the hell that happened, me and my family got back something like a couple hundred dollars. But what did that couple hundred dollars do for us? Not that much. What did that couple hundred dollars, multiplied by the millions in this country(not even counting the exponential increase in return for the filthy rich), do? It brought is into debt way more and forced us to make cuts in programs that should not be cut, ever. And subsuquently, some of our brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers and friends in Iraq and Afganistan were not properly equipped with what they needed. Many died as a result of this. I would gladly have given back those couple hundred if it meant that ONE soldier had been saved because he had the right body armor.


Are you serious? The annual US federal budget is 2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS. We've spent, TOTAL in Afghanistan and Iraq about $120 billion, which is less than 5% of just one-year's budget. YOu're actually saying because we are running a deficit that soldiers are ill-equipped? I think we are spending exactly what the President has asked for for the war, period, with no regard to if it is going to increase the deficit. I don't care for the myth that you are perpetuating that somehow because of a tax cut that was less than 80 billion per year our soldiers are somehow dying. That is moronic and its not factually based.

The tax cut isn't even worth a 1/4th of the current deficit, so to blame the tax cuts alone for the deficit is wrong and also ignores the recession we climbed out of. Without the tax cut, the economic recovery would be weaker. In the long run, a little more deficit now will help the economy recover and ultimately tax collections will grow. Deficits are overrated anyway. I'd like to see us eliminate our deficit but if we have to crush economic growth to do it then forget it. I think we can grow our way out of the deficit.

FYI the rich benefit more from tax cuts becaue they pay more in to start with. That's not class warfare, that is mathematics.

Finally, for anyone that wants higher taxes, do you itemize your 1040? If you do you are a class A hippocrite.

I also find it funny we are all quick to jump on oil companies for profiteering when they usually only make about a nickel per gallon profit off gasoline, yet the gas taxes are often as much a 40 cents per gallon.

What I don't like about this is that it is predicated on 2 things:
1)more big government bureacracy through an enforecement mechanism. Very Orwellian IMO.
2) the repeal of the gas tax.

1) is just a further infringement on my freedom. At least with the gas tax its collected at purchase, its a clean transaction.
2) can anyone here cite me ONE example of a tax that, once implemented, was repealed?

In a vacuum, I actually like the equity of this approach better. It would tax us all equally based on our actual usage of public roads, not based on the consumption rate of the vehicle we choose. Its a more appropriate measurement of your fair share of use of roads. The current tax is better suited to controlling behavior, however, like influencing people to buy more efficient cars.

So, in theory it has its merits and it has its drawbacks, but in reality, knowing the proclivities of government and its insatiable thirst for MY money, I'd rather just leave well enough alone and move on.

In a vacuum, I actually like the equity of this approach better. It would tax us all equally based on our actual usage of public roads, not based on the consumption rate of the vehicle we choose. Its a more appropriate measurement of your fair share of use of roads. The current tax is better suited to controlling behavior, however, like influencing people to buy more efficient cars.

If people are going to be taxed on milage, then they should also be taxed on car weight since heavier vehicles wear roads quicker. Or maybe base it on how many psi of presure your tires foot print is puting on the road.

back to spending, Iraq is expected to cost us just under $300 Billion by the end of the year. A manned mission to mars is expected to cost between $10-20 Billion. Just imagine if a quater Trillion $$ went to NASA, think of all the trickle down tech the world would get.

I also find it funny we are all quick to jump on oil companies for profiteering when they usually only make about a nickel per gallon profit off gasoline, yet the gas taxes are often as much a 40 cents per gallon.

What I don't like about this is that it is predicated on 2 things:
1)more big government bureacracy through an enforecement mechanism. Very Orwellian IMO.
2) the repeal of the gas tax.

1) is just a further infringement on my freedom. At least with the gas tax its collected at purchase, its a clean transaction.
2) can anyone here cite me ONE example of a tax that, once implemented, was repealed?

In a vacuum, I actually like the equity of this approach better. It would tax us all equally based on our actual usage of public roads, not based on the consumption rate of the vehicle we choose. Its a more appropriate measurement of your fair share of use of roads. The current tax is better suited to controlling behavior, however, like influencing people to buy more efficient cars.

So, in theory it has its merits and it has its drawbacks, but in reality, knowing the proclivities of government and its insatiable thirst for MY money, I'd rather just leave well enough alone and move on.

Id vote for him...

Wait...

;)

Are you serious? The annual US federal budget is 2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS. We've spent, TOTAL in Afghanistan and Iraq about $120 billion, which is less than 5% of just one-year's budget. YOu're actually saying because we are running a deficit that soldiers are ill-equipped? I think we are spending exactly what the President has asked for for the war, period, with no regard to if it is going to increase the deficit. I don't care for the myth that you are perpetuating that somehow because of a tax cut that was less than 80 billion per year our soldiers are somehow dying. That is moronic and its not factually based.


I was never saying that we arent spending what the president asked for to spend on the war, cuz we are. And yes, I directly attacked Bush in that argument, but my argument applies to tax cuts in general. If our Military, over the course of the last decade, had been given more money for R&D and more money for equipment, then perhaps, PERHAPS, there would be less of a human toll in Iraq. Of course there are holes all over my argument in reality. Money probably woulda been spent on weapon platforms that are unnecessary or redundant. But, in theory, it holds water.

The tax cut isn't even worth a 1/4th of the current deficit, so to blame the tax cuts alone for the deficit is wrong and also ignores the recession we climbed out of. Without the tax cut, the economic recovery would be weaker. In the long run, a little more deficit now will help the economy recover and ultimately tax collections will grow. Deficits are overrated anyway. I'd like to see us eliminate our deficit but if we have to crush economic growth to do it then forget it. I think we can grow our way out of the deficit.

FYI the rich benefit more from tax cuts becaue they pay more in to start with. That's not class warfare, that is mathematics.

Finally, for anyone that wants higher taxes, do you itemize your 1040? If you do you are a class A hippocrite.
I never blamed the tax cuts on our current defecit. I blame the cuts on CONTRIBUTING to it. And 1/4th of the current defecit is HUGE. And yes, I dont see us wiping out the entire defecit because that would be impractical, and like you said, would crush our economic growth. Economic growth is pivotal to our eventual growth out of the defecit as you stated.

And yes, I KNOW the rich benefit more from tax cuts because they pay more to begin with. I took high school economics ;) And i remember alot from it cuz it was only 4yrs ago :D But DO NOT take that to mean that I dont know whats going economic wise in America.

Lastly, I do not itemize my 1040. My weapon of choice is a 1040easy :eek:

If our Military, over the course of the last decade, had been given more money for R&D and more money for equipment, then perhaps, PERHAPS, there would be less of a human toll in Iraq. Of course there are holes all over my argument in reality. Money probably woulda been spent on weapon platforms that are unnecessary or redundant. But, in theory, it holds water.

Thats why Clinton slashed the military budget, and worse, the intelligence budget right? We can do coulda woulda shoulda all day, and at the end of the day, you're right where you started, one way or the other.

The military is not the reason for extraneous spending and redundancies...Talk to the pork barrel congressmen and senators on the hill about that. The military requests a base closure in one place, and recieves two that it didnt want, because the representatives are more concerned with getting their pet projects accomplished.

Thats why Clinton slashed the military budget, and worse, the intelligence budget right? We can do coulda woulda shoulda all day, and at the end of the day, you're right where you started, one way or the other.

The military is not the reason for extraneous spending and redundancies...Talk to the pork barrel congressmen and senators on the hill about that. The military requests a base closure in one place, and recieves two that it didnt want, because the representatives are more concerned with getting their pet projects accomplished.
Whoa, I never said it was the reason, in fact I was arguing the complete opposite. And the Military NEVER really wants a base closure, its forced into it due to lack of funds and lack of manpower to staff those bases. If it were up to me, ALOT more money would go to the military, but like you said, lots of our money goes to pork barrel spending, which kinda pisses me off.

I was never saying that we arent spending what the president asked for to spend on the war, cuz we are. And yes, I directly attacked Bush in that argument, but my argument applies to tax cuts in general. If our Military, over the course of the last decade, had been given more money for R&D and more money for equipment, then perhaps, PERHAPS, there would be less of a human toll in Iraq. Of course there are holes all over my argument in reality. Money probably woulda been spent on weapon platforms that are unnecessary or redundant. But, in theory, it holds water.Thats why Clinton slashed the military budget, and worse, the intelligence budget right? We can do coulda woulda shoulda all day, and at the end of the day, you're right where you started, one way or the other.

The military didn't need more R&D, the tech was there, the money was there (at least thats what Rumsfeld says) The problem was the war had to be rushed before the American public could catch on to the bait and switch. It was also a very poorly planned war, not enough troops and armor from day one, the Iraqis were under-estimated. There wasn't the dacing in the street and singing of "ding dong the witch is dead" like everyone expected.

Defecit is something like ~$450 billion, $155 Billion of that is from Iraq.