"E. Meyer" wrote:

The only thing that has been proved is you don't have a point.

Research is already being done. Making oil products more expensive will
naturally increase the research into alternatives to oil. That much is
pretty hard to argue against. The only question is what people want to
happen how to make it happen is simple.

There is no need to put the tax into research. The research will happen
if there is economic incentive to replace oil. If the tax is put into
paying down the deficit that will mean future generations (who won't
have the benefit of abundant oil) won't look back and wonder how they
could have been so stupid and selfish that they just wastefully burned
up a valuable commodity and at the same time didn't even pay their
bills. The current behavior is what is known as a binge. And society has
a stake in taking steps to prevent the bingeing because it is becoming
more and more clear that it is destructive.

You have offered no explanation of why a tax on oil is supposed to be
used to "build & maintain highways"? Did Moses come down from the
mountain with a stone tablet saying this is how it should be?

On 6/30/09 12:36 PM, in article BaGdnX5eJ7W-0NfXnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d (AT) bright (DOT) net,
"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:

Well, that's it isn't it: "economic" incentive, not scientific necessity.

Clear to whom? Just because the liberal douches in power this week are
catering to that lobby, doesn't make it truth.

Pull up the congressional record from when the tax was levied.

"E. Meyer" wrote:
It is clear to any one with at least half a brain that the oil binge has become
destructive. It leads to destructive behavior such as attacking sovereign
nations that aren't showing any indication of threatening us. Every time the
price of oil spikes upward the country goes into a huge economic downturn. Are
you going to wait until the economic destruction is massive and permanent before
you are willing to call that destructive? The current economic model depends
almost entirely on low and stable oil prices. It is pretty clear that low and
stable oil prices is something that can no longer be relied on to always exist.
It is pretty clear to anyone who is willing to pull his head out of the sand
that the economic health of the nation depends on stable oil supply and prices.
A large tax on oil is the only effective option to bring about that level of
stability. The nation can easily adapt to higher costs of petroleum based
products, but it is obvious it can't handle inconsistent supply and pricing.


What lobby are you talking about? Confucius warned of the destructive nature of
bingeing 3000 years ago. Does he have a lobby i don't know about?


I do know what it is that congress said. Congress is not Moses and their ideas
are not divinely inspired. You are making it sound like when congress says jump,
you reply "Yes massah, how high would you like me to jump".

I know why congress said they levied the tax and I know why the tax as it now
stands has been good for the petroleum and auto industry. That didn't answer my
question. What is the good reason you can give for the nation to only spend the
gas tax on highways? It seems to me it is like levying a small tax on alcohol
and then insisting on the belief that the revenues from alcohol tax can only be
used to buy bar stools for taverns and the tax can never be any larger than that
specific need requires. What would be the good reason for such tax scheme if you
don't own a tavern?

The question I asked and you can't seem to answer is: What good reason can you
give to not put a large tax on oil for the benefit of the economic health of the
nation and to benefit future generations?

-jim

Roger Blake wrote:
Oh really, Well if there is an infinite supply that is being withheld
from the market the only ones benefiting from that would be the oil
producers. It is called hoarding and it is done to artificially jack up
the price.


How does that work? I can see how taxing your pay check might be
regarded as an assault in that way, but a tax on the oil companies? How
is that an attack on the people?



So about all you can know is that the bogey man is hiding under the
bed.

-jim

"Roger Blake" <rogblake10 (AT) iname10 (DOT) com> wrote


Do you see red under the bed as well?

"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
Truer words were never spoken.. I want to puke every time I hear some
politician talk about the Social Security "trust fund". There is NO trust
and
NO fund.

All that money goes into the general budget, and SS expenses are paid the
same way.

If those funds that were originally held in trust for SS had been invested
at a minimally reasonable rate, I have seen calculations that we would now
have an excess of some $31 trillion dollars...

This is criminal, in my mind.

HLS wrote:
Well you might want to call it unethical, but it is certainly not
criminal, because it was all done in broad daylight with the consent and
approval of the governed.

When the SS tax rate was doubled 25 years ago there was also a
reshuffling of the income tax code. The government announced joyously
that everybody got a tax break. But 30% of the people at the bottom end
of the pay scale actually saw there pay checks go down because there SS
tax increase was more than there income tax decrease. But it didn't
matter they still all cheered "YEA we got a tax break!" and elected the
politicians back into office with landslide victories.

When you are dealing with a population that is too incompetent to be
able to read and understand their own pay stubs there is no need to
engage in criminal activity to fleece them.

-jim

"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote

Little is done here with the consent of the governed. That was the goal,
but the
system doesnt really work that way

On 7/1/09 9:15 AM, in article Y-edndS27tvs8tbXnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d (AT) bright (DOT) net,
"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:

It never fails. As soon as a liberal starts getting frustrated, they resort
to personal attacks.


> -jim

"E. Meyer" wrote:
That could well be true, but like just about everything else you have
written it has nothing to do with anything that was previously said. How
did liberals get dragged into this? The people who advocate a balanced
budget are usually labeled as conservatives.


-jim