Originally Posted by eagleknight97

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.

Originally Posted by Chris 96 WS6

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.

Originally Posted by Chris 96 WS6

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.

Originally Posted by Chris 96 WS6

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.

Originally Posted by Chris 96 WS6

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.

Originally Posted by eagleknight97

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.

Originally Posted by MissedShift

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.

Originally Posted by eagleknight97

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.

Originally Posted by MissedShift

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.