Interbane: "That's profound. Our government hates it's constituents! Where is the government's brain located, that it might be hateful?"

Forty-seven percent of the "constituents" pay no income tax. A major percentage of the "middle class" work for the government. The self-employed or small business owners are not the constituents of our current government and are hated by the government.

Interbane: "What is pitiful about my statement? You say that cars were developed before we got a nanny state. There is nothing within that reply that shows me wrong... do you imagine there is? The government was very much in place when cars were developed. At least, I'm pretty sure there was a government in place."

Sorry, Interbane, but the government as it now exists had not even been imagined in their worst nightmares when cars, and gasoline, were coming on the scene.

President Camacho: "WOW Pat. You obviously don't know who's trying to butter your bread and who's trying to butter your butt."

Cute. Stupid but cute. I suppose the ones wanting to butter my butt are the ones whose spiffy new slogan is "lean forward." Which party would have some interest in buttering my butt? If the government asks you to give them your bread so they can butter it, go for it sucker, and you'll be demanding my bread and butter because yours will be gone.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how raising taxes prevents the price of a commodity from going up. I realize that for liberals raising taxes is as natural as breathing but most don't try to give silly rationale for it. How does raising taxes on something keep the cost down?

The self-employed or small business owners are not the constituents

You missed my point. You're personifying a collective. There is no "brain" in the government. Perhaps there's an analogy, such as the White House or HOR or the chamber, or the CIA, but no actual brain with which you would need to 'hate' something. If you think there's a group of people, say the Liberals in the House, that hate small business owners, then show some support for your mudslinging.

Sorry, Interbane, but the government as it now exists had not even been imagined in their worst nightmares when cars, and gasoline, were coming on the scene.

Were you apologizing for your non-sequitur logic? Your reply doesn't address my point. My point is that government is needed for such amenities. If you think otherwise, the onus is on you. Many people speculate what life would be like without government, but I'm confident that few hit the mark.

How does raising taxes on something keep the cost down?

By paying off debt. There are costs associated with debt. Interest, for instance. Why would you not raise taxes on the rich(who can afford it) to pay off our national debt? Are you rich? Do you not realize my entire problem with the government is the allowance of wealth inequality? That is a war that's been going on since the 70's. Fox News, the conservative propaganda machine, talks about class warfare as if raising taxes would initiate such warfare. But the war has been going on silently for decades. If the relative equality had remained the same since 1970, instead of polarizing, average middle class income would be 5-10% higher per person. That's a lot of money.

If you want to know where all that money is at, and where the hell it would come from, you only need to look at a relatively few bank accounts. Rather than spend the money and feed the economy, as the middle class does, the money would be "invested", effectively eliminating it from the range of markets available to the middle class. It's essentially out of circulation, as far as the middle class is concerned.

The secondary effect of continuously reducing taxes on the rich has been the national debt. You can blame it on spending all you want, but conservatives now are starting to slash into the skeleton of our government! Very very soon, the government will no longer be able to fulfil it's obligations to it's citizens. Its regulatory ability is impotent, effectively letting loose private interests to amass wealth at the expense of private citizens. Why should we not keep the same programs in place that have made our country prosperous? The answer is because we can't afford it. The answer is to fix taxation and increase income, not shaft the middle class by decreasing spending.

Another facet of this class warfare is that class mobility has decreased since the 1970's. It's hot in pop culture and is everyone's dream to strike it rich, but it is a diminishing dream. If you want to follow the chain of cause and effect, look at certain regulation and deregulation within the policy drift that has occured over the past 3 decades. Conservatives have pushed an agenda(successfully) that effectively strangles class mobility. The wealthy who feed them campaign dollars now have to worry less about sharing the wealth.


I spelled out what I think the problems are, and I gave a solution.

God loves ordinary people and thats why he made so many of us

Ok, here's an interesting read for those trying to understand the Economics of Inequality, Discrimination, Poverty, and Mobility. wdn.ipublishcentral.net/sharpe/viewinsi ... 1248139075

Camacho: "By paying off debt. There are costs associated with debt. Interest, for instance."

That was a pitiful stretch. So, there is no way that raising taxes on gasoline prevent the costs from going up. It's also not surprising that you see raising taxes as the way to reduce our debt. While I personally see it as a necessary part of reducing the debt the primary factor is to cut spending.

Sorry, Camacho, but saying that automobiles and gasoline wouldn't exist without the amenities of government is an assertion that requires some proof. The onus would be on you. I would accept the onus of proving that todays government bears no resemblance to our government in 1900 if any proof were needed.

How does raising taxes help keep the cost of an item down:

Easy, just think about it.

Gasoline is an inelastic good. The demand for it is relatively constant despite increases in price. This is why you see the oil companies reaping huge profits. If the good were relatively elastic then with each raise in price there would be less consumption. A lot of this has to do with pure necessity - most of us NEED gas to survive in the society we've built and there are no ready alternatives as of yet that can be considered substitute goods.

So... gas prices may rise and consumption will stay the same. BUT. Let's say gas were 100 dollars per gallon rather than 1 dollar. New alternative fuels would be able to compete with gasoline, alternative modes of transportation would be sought, and people would recognize that they could no longer rely on gas. Gas would cease to become a necessity.

By increasing gas prices you shift momentum towards finding cheaper modes of transportation and fuel as well as the added benefit of not funneling loads of money into the economies of countries that hate us.

And stop quoting incorrectly, it's getting as confusing as the conservative propaganda you're trying to sell.

None of these comments has addressed the speculation in oil that is currently going on in the commodities market. Some reports claim that the speculators in the stock market are contributing to the rising prices. Any thoughts on that?

Patrick is right about one thing: increase gas taxes would lead to higher gas prices. Now, there are valid reasons for increasing gas prices, such as reducing the environmental problems caused by automobiles, but those benefits arise because increased gas prices.

When the automobile was invented, the US government was much smaller than it is today, and the government wasn't directly involved in that invention. Still, the government payed for most roads, and the need for oil was a major factor behind the very expensive US military actions in the Middle East. Without government involvement, there would be significantly less driving.

A statement like the following has all kinds of issues.

Forty-seven percent of the "constituents" pay no income tax. A major percentage of the "middle class" work for the government. The self-employed or small business owners are not the constituents of our current government and are hated by the government.

Though many Americans don't pay income taxes, they pay other taxes, such as sales and payroll taxes. They're still bearing a reasonable portion of the tax burden.

A majority of the middle-class workers are probably employees in the private sector, as opposed to government workers, the self-employed, or small business owners. I'm not sure of the breakdown, which depends on how you define the middle class.

Democrats tend to balance the interests of business owners against other concerns, in contrast to Republicans who are incredibly pro-business. For example, Democrats supported the health-care program that would improve the lives of millions of Americans, even though many small businesses opposed that program. Meanwhile, Republicans want to maintain a status quo in which 45 million Americans lack health insurance and cut Medicare so many more Americans receive less health care. That doesn't mean Democrats hate small business. A more logical conclusion is that Republicans hate ordinary Americans, many of whom would suffer or die from treatable illnesses if Republicans had their way.

JulianTheApostate wrote:A more logical conclusion is that Republicans hate ordinary Americans, many of whom would suffer or die from treatable illnesses if Republicans had their way.

I'm not a Republican, but I think an even more logical conclusion is that all politicians give the special interests what they want. The Democrats give the public sector unions what they want -- among others -- and pretend it's for the little guy. And you don't think Democrats dish out corporate welfare? They just call it "fair trade" or "green jobs" or something else.

It upsets me that you guys pay less than half of what I do for car fuel!!! A Gallon here would cost roughly $8.6...

JulianTheApostate wrote:
A more logical conclusion is that Republicans hate ordinary Americans, many of whom would suffer or die from treatable illnesses if Republicans had their way.

This is one of those completely silly statements. so only Democrats are "ordinary" Americans?
So we have a country made up of Good people or ordinary people and Republicans who are what? Never suffering, never ill with a treatable illness and all wealthy?

I live in a small town. Our town votes 3 to one Democrat. One of our town councillors chided another (the lone Republican) that all she cared about was moderate and low income people and those who were elderly. That is the true face of equity in this country. It is the flip of the propaganda.

We had a neighborhood issue in which our neighborhood (relatively low income in this well to do town) resisted a change being proposed. Another town councillor (one of those liberal democrats) said what right did we have to be concerned, after all we lived in a low income part of town. What could we possibly care?