The main beef i have about this taxing mileage is in the article they talked about installing gps systems in vehicles. Those vehicles who don't have gps, whose going to pay to put those suckers in? The customer themselves. And another thing, If you tax mileage then there goes anyones idea of compact cars. Taxing mileage would ruin billions upon billions of dollars worth of production for those car companies that have researched and developed better fuel efficient cars. There would be no possible way to get more miles per mile.

I agree with the trimming the fat statement. The war in Iraq is costing billions to stay there. I don't think we will ever "win" the war on terrorism. Its everywhere throughout the global nation. I'm not saying we should pull out all at once, I'm saying we should start gradually pulling out. Why spend so much money on a country that hates us for one, and has idiots running up and down the street blowing each other up? Does anyone here actually think if the war was over here that Iraq would "re-build" the U.S.? Hell no they wouldn't!

Bottom line is I'm against the taxing of mileage. IDK what the roads are like up there in Oregon but in Indiana I can say they are pretty good around here. Going into Illinois though, thats a different story!

 

heh, well if these idiots here in america made roads the RIGHT way, ya know like them Europeans do. just maybe the roads would last much longer and wouldnt require the upkeep.

 

I don't agree with it---but I do not agree with the title of the thread---"socialism is getting bold." Since when is this taxation socialism? WE have taxed ourselves in a variety of ways...from gas taxes to license plate fees to excise taxes, etc...and now they want to tax mileage (which I think wreaks of Big Brother...) but I still do not get why this is socialisitic...can somebody explain why this is socialism...please?

Tim C.

 

Guess a liberal doesn't understand socialism. It is socialist in every way. It is out of the governments bounds to tax mileage. The government is taking taking taking. That is NOT there job. They are trying hard to make the citizens more and more Dependant on government. That is socialism."WE have taxed ourselves in a variety of ways"... yeah.. and all a bad idea. That doesn't make this a good idea. It is time for another Boston tea party. Get rid of the NEA,PBS and a bunch of other social programs to take care of the nations business. There are so many wasteful programs that need to be cut. We would be flush with money if the government got rid of waste.

 

They always want our odometer reading, but so far it is for statistics only.
They have done that for at least 20 years

 

Talking about the pork, whatever happened to the line item veto, that was going to be the presidents' ability?

 

Most Americans work approx 6 months out of a year to pay taxes. I'd say the last thing WE need is to be taxed more while Congress is adding PORK to every bill for crap like the study of bear farts on the environment. There's been wars started over way less tax burdens to "the people" than we currently have.

Until we start electing officials that truly stand by the will of the people we are doomed. Those sworn in to protect our rights and make decisions for the masses are grossly overstepping their bounds. Americans do not need another tax... We need better representation!

I totally agree with the post about building better roads rather than maintaining roads that were built poorly to begin with. We need to look to Europe and take a few notes. Then again if we did that all those companies bidding on projects and raping local and state Gov'ts for improvement projects would have to change. Then how would local politicians line their pockets?

 

Then Chris, how do we build and maintain the roads used by the public? Why don't you object to the gas tax, or to the tire excise tax, or to the lcense plate fees? I have a very good grip on what is socialsim and what is not:
From distionary.com---a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

How is the government vesting any ownership, land, etc---it is bulding and maintaining roads for the PUBLIC'S USE...something that is centuries old...
Everything that is big government is not Socialist---get your terms lined up correctly.

TSC

 

It is out of the governments bounds to tax mileage Have you ever had to pay a toll to go over a bridge or to drive on a road? A turnpike? Why didn't you object to that,then? I do not like the idea of taxing mileage, but it is, in effect, not new at all---the Ohio Turnpike, the Pennsylvania Turnpike, the New York Thruway, the Massachusetts Turnpile to name a few...

it is big government here, not socialism, Chris...

 

I disagree with every tax you mentioned. What makes you think in the smallest way that I agreed with them? The federal roads programs were put in place when the nation was growing. The interstates NEEDED federal money and oversite to complete. Now that the infrastructure is there, the feds need to GET OUT of the road building business. It should be the states job to maintain and build more. Trust me, I have voted down tolls every time it has come up in elections. Socialism fits in because obama mamma is saying he want road projects to help employ people in the government. That is a : "system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." if I ever saw it. For cripes sake, the roads aren't in such doom and gloom shape as everyone says. Of course up keep needs to happen, but you can drive coast to coast with ease. The democrat scare tactics are very effective.

 

More government is never the answer. Never.

Remember that, you Obama supporters, in the coming years.

 

Tell that to the people of Minneapolis--


Those bridges that were built say---50 years ago are getting ready---if they haven't all ready (see Minneapolis) fall down. Cleveland has one, too


Here is the article---http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/10/how_serious_are_the_inner_belt.html

I have to fault you on your logic---the feds build the stuff ---ad if there is not enough money, they go into debt and just say "screw it---" and then turn over the repairs and maintenance to the states---who are now in the midst of budget shortfalls.

Now, the one bridge in my town will cost $140,000,000 to temporarily repair it or $400,000,000 to build another span to ease its weight limitations...where do you come up up with $400,000,000?

I see from your info that you live in Western Washington; I assume that on occasion, you drive over some rather tall bridges---if you are on that bridge, say, when it goes "BOOM!", and you are in the middle of you plunge to eternity---will the thought process go through your mind saying, "Maybe a few pennies here and there wasn't so bad, after all!"

I go back to your quote: For cripes sake, the roads aren't in such doom and gloom shape as everyone says, those bridges that were built 50 years ago are at the end of their life expectancy---and are either falling apart or falling down and you say simply cutting NPR ,NEA, and PBS is the answer?

Their budgets are miniscule to our needs.

Tim C.

 

Seeing as I am from Minnesota, and have family there.. and my sister drove that bridge every day to work... I have a little info you maybe haven't seen.. you probably have.. but selective facts are the norm for liberals.... The bridge design was faulty. Not the age... not the repairs... the design was faulty from the start.
My logic is solid. The states need to take care of infrastructure. That way the people in the state have a say on there money being used. At the federal level, states like kalifornia have a greater say on federal money than smaller states. The voting population is getting screwed by a few big states. State government is responsible for the infrastructure. The federal government is growing far to big. It has been since the great depression. Of which the feds are responsible for extending the great depression for an extra 7 years by some reports. Bigger federal government is WRONG.

 

Yep, I know that there was a "design flaw" in the bridge---the bridge in Cleveland has the same flaw. But, at the time the bridges were built, the design---the engineering of it, was acceptable. My point is this, Chris---how many other bridges out there have the same design flaw? How many of those bridges are nearing their life expectancy or are in need of being torn down and rebuilt? Where, do you come up with the funds for this?

TSC

 

Just wanted to add, The funds of a central government outweigh the funds of a state government. So who would have the most funds to design the best bridge?
That is just my way of thinking.