DC Tom Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 I bring up you and Tom and you bring up me and mom? Hmmmm....Is Tom your dad? You really suck at this whole insult thing. Seriously, you're just horrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 You really suck at this whole insult thing. Seriously, you're just horrible. Now that really hurts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 You really suck at this whole insult thing. Seriously, you're just horrible. You ought to encourage him a bit more. I mean, that might have been pretty bad, but it's a step up from 'poop head'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 It's not a percentage and it isn't a flat fee per gallon that is tied to inflation by any formula. It's just 18.4 cents a gallon and has been '93. There's a highway trust fund that this goes toward, and that fund just keeps needing supplements from general revenue to stay afloat...and infrastructure spending as percentage of GDP is historically low. Most people agree that if you are going to do something...building infrastructure is as good as anything. $50 a gallon. It's not going to stay 18.4 cents a gallon forever, it's arbitrary at this point. Since you have to revisit at some point, why not now? It's a pretty regressive tax, conservatives should be able to stomach a small increase if it comes by way of some formula. Except the Keystone pipline. Because....it's not "infrastructure", right? If there is a single word I've heard from Ds in my life, it's "infrastructure". "Why do we need to elect Bill Clinton? Infrastructure ":lol: The roads and tunnels and bridges didn't get that way overnight. Rather, I believe most of these things started having their problems during the Clinton Administration....i mean...when I hear "this bridge is 20 years overdue for an overhaul"? Hmmm, let's see now: 2014-20 = 1994! 2 full years into the Presidency of Infrastructure! That makes 6 of those 20 with a D doing nothing. 8 with Bush doing nothing, and now, another 6 with Obama doing nothing. Seems like 12 years of doing nothing, especially when a $1 trillion not-"Keynesian Stimulus" was passed....means a lot more nothing happened with Ds in office. How come we didn't create/raise an infrastructure tax from 2009-2010, when Ds had full control of Congress? Oh, that's right, the borrowed $ stimulus was going to take care of it, right? And, if you know your economics, then you know what happened to the $. It didn't go to "shovel ready jobs", and Obama himself giggled when he admitted that (assclown). It went to the bosses of the poorly run cities in this country to keep their over-extended asses from going bankrupt. There were no multipliers, like "fix Bridge X", which does create jobs, albeit temporary, but that's how a Keynesian stimulus is properly applied: the hope is that the kickstart will encourage investment, and that investment will create permanent jobs. It went to green venture capital like Solyndra. Instead of venture capital funds doing what they do, and rejecting terrible ideas like Solyndra, the government decided that VCs don't know what they are doing/are prejudiced against green businesses. So, they took our money and blew it on one terrible businesss plan after then next! Hooray! A lot of roads and bridges could have been fixed using Solyndra's $ all by itself. Thus, a Keynesian stimulus with no multipliers, and not buying things from existing firms, creating demand, but instead on venture capital, which won't create demand for years, if at all? = A not-Keynsian stimulus. Next, explain to me how the F "infrastructure" just magically appears in the media...like it always has my entire life, whenever the Ds are in trouble/thrown out of power? There's a clear correlation. They need the "infrastructure" spending, so, they can grease the unions, so, the unions will have the $ to mobilize and put them back into power. Well, that's how it's supposd to work. You blow a trillion on nothing, then you want to raise gas taxes.....after this adminstration has been doing all it can to get gas prices as high as possible, as a way to force "change" in vehicles/our driving habits? Gas prices drop, because nobody counted on fracking/natural gas....and suddenly Bam! You want to replace our savings with a tax? WTF? You have to be high. Didn't you and the rest of the Ds just get a historical whipping not 3 months ago? Were you in a coma? Dude, I don't know if you realize it, but people have F'ing had it with Obama and the rest of the far-left Ds, so much so that the only people still in Congress ARE far-left Ds. You can forget your tax. Never gonna happen. You have to earn back out trust after the Obamacare fiasco. Prove that you can do things right for a change, then maybe we'll listen to your next wacky plan. Well neither of those things are happening. I think it would be reasonable to designate in the law that the funds are to be used on infrastructure and only infrastructure...and then find a reasonable thing to do with the tax rate. Pass an infrastructure bill (that has keystone in there for those who for some reason love keystone) and mess with the gas tax, go build/improve more stuff. Economy is rolling and gas is cheap, now is a fine time to do this. You don't understand DC. Pass a law? Fine. Now, what happens when they pass a new law that says the $ can be used for other things? What it that is part of a larger deal that "everybody" wants or has to vote for? What if it is inserted as an amendment on a completely unrelated bill like military spending? Which R is going to vote against military spending? Which D is going to vote against military spending? (Check the record...Ds talk all kinds of schit about military spending, but most always seem to find the "courage" to vote to keep the base in their district fully funded ) You: "But...but...but...(been a while since we've seen this one, eh?) you promised you'd spend it on infrastructure!" Them: "That was last Congress, and we aren't beholden to them, we are only accountable to the voters in our districts, who put us here, today!" You: "But you were in the same seat you are in now, back then" Them: "You're not getting it, my constituents wanted that then, and they want this now!" Oh, so you got the Keystone thing in there? Nice to see you're not a complete dolt, and recognize that "infrastructure" includes things like pipelines, which are historically the least environmentall hazardous way to move oil. Again, stop arguing with strawmen. That won't impress anyone here. What I said was that I believe the government has enough to meet the burden of their legitimate duties, which includes all infrastructure maintenance. If they disagree, they can demonstrate it. That's not an argument against new taxes or new spending, it's demand that they demonstrate need. As for the tax revenue as a % of GDP argument, you'll have to explain why the size and scope of government should be indexed to the size of the economy. I've never heard a well-formed argument in favor. Finally, your position on what is or is not reasonable is nothing more than a fiat declaration colored by your own biases. That you find government accountability and direct guarantees to tax payers to be unreasonable speaks volumes about your positions. Has anyone here spent any time trying to apply for benefits of any kind from the government? How about a grant? How about research? If you have, then you are quite familiar with "showing need". The government won't part with a penny for the average Joe, unless Joe fills out 20 forms and gets them all noterized, approved, and the whole thing takes 6 months, with the requisite amount of "need" shown at every point in the process. Yet, if we dare to ask the government to show need with our money? No, no, no....we aren't capable of comprehending. These things are better left to the "experts"...who often are the direct beneficiaries of the "need"ed $. Or, the people who designed the Obamacare abortion, turned around, and sold their services as "consultants" to the states and large corporations....because? They had a need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I bring up you and Tom and you bring up me and mom? Hmmmm....Is Tom your dad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts