The gas tax idea -- a follow-up on Kevin's post

Tim Elston · Postby **Tim Elston** » January 1st, 2009, 11:50 am

Mike Vande wrote:And the Democrats are the tax party, obviously. It's why they end up losing elections after they've been in office long enough to think people will continue to vote for them even if pick their pockets for their pet social engineering projects.

There's some truth to that. Republicans are into the pick-pocket routine, too, but they are apparently more willing to steal from the future, at interest. Spend now, pay later: the new Republican watch-word. But don't ask the consituency to pay for what we're spending, because we'd lose our "No tax" image. And we all know that image is power. But, as you point out, failure eventually catches up, and that's why the Republican party lost this time.

Mike Vande · Postby **Mike Vande** » January 2nd, 2009, 2:36 am

Tim Elston wrote:There's some truth to that. Republicans are into the pick-pocket routine, too, but they are apparently more willing to steal from the future, at interest. Spend now, pay later: the new Republican watch-word. But don't ask the consituency to pay for what we're spending, because we'd lose our "No tax" image. And we all know that image is power. But, as you point out, failure eventually catches up, and that's why the Republican party lost this time.

Watch the deficit bloom under the Obama Administration. He's not gonna make it any better. Some folks are saying his tax plan is going to make it worse.

one love · Postby **one love** » January 2nd, 2009, 5:29 am

Mike at the moment he has not launched any new idea for taxes, he is using , as he would say "More Bush" plan of taxes....

Tim I would like to point out this tax really has to do with the fact that they lost revenue when people cut back on gas, not fuel consumption or decreasing larger vehicles.
On the premise that their reasoning is to get us to not buy large suvs, here are a few reasons I am against it.

1st I do not want the government taxing us on items they think should be different, where will it end? What if they tax bottled water higher because they want you to drink city water. Bad analogy but the point is the same.

2nd There is no incentive for those that are using fuel efficient cars they get taxed as well.

3rd IT WILL kill business period. The American big three will suffer and the bailout would not be even close to helping. They can not compete with foreign cars with the ridiculous union demands.
It will kill small business that have to keep multiple vehicles on the road daily. What ever they choose to help our burden for the increase will never be equal and surely will not be instant, so business just has to float the money.

RamboPreacher · Postby **RamboPreacher** » January 2nd, 2009, 6:15 am

i prefer to drive my GMC truck rather than the celica.

Full Quiver · Postby **Full Quiver** » January 2nd, 2009, 8:26 am

If the govt. doesn't want us driving big, gas guzzling SUVS then they just need to outlaw them and they do have that power. They keep the Nissan Skyliner out of the states then they can prevent Ford and GM from building these things. Ford found it unprofitable to build their tank, the Excursion, though it was a heck of a truck. GM sells a ton of Yukons and such though. The govt. can FORCE them to have a certain mpg and if they don't then they can't sell them period. If it doesn't get 15mpg then it shouldn't be built anyhow.

one love · Postby **one love** » January 2nd, 2009, 8:30 am

Why not offer more tax incentives to the auto makers to make better vehicles with more gas mileage instead of taking the money themselves, then everyone wins.
They have made hybrid SUVS they can do even better then that, give them the incentive not close them down so the federal government can get money :evil:

By the way riding a motorcycle is dangerous so how about a tax hike to all those that ride to keep them safe.

Guns are dangerous according to some (I feel people are dangerous) but lets make the tax on guns so high nobody can buy them.

this is socialism and government control. They want it one way and will do so by force, one way or another.

Mike Vande · Postby **Mike Vande** » January 2nd, 2009, 8:44 am

one love wrote:Mike at the moment he has not launched any new idea for taxes, he is using , as he would say "More Bush" plan of taxes....

THey were saying it before he took office. If has hasn't changed his plan, they are still saying it, dude.

one love · Postby **one love** » January 2nd, 2009, 9:52 am

Mike Vande wrote:
one love wrote:Mike at the moment he has not launched any new idea for taxes, he is using , as he would say "More Bush" plan of taxes....

THey were saying it before he took office. If has hasn't changed his plan, they are still saying it, dude.

Mike Understand I am not in disagreement with you he launched his new tax plan all through the campaign. He said that he would cut taxes on those making less then 250k and raise them on those making over 250k. He said he would get rid of the Bush tax cuts etc.

Because he did not want NO more bush.

He is now saying that he will not raise those taxes right now because it will hurt the economy worse and will not get rid of the bush tax cuts.

He is using the same tax plan at the moment which in my opinion is saying McCain and Bush were correct higher taxes hurts the economy.

Jude 2