Raise the federal gas tax? (Iraq, middle east, gasoline, highway)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Name some wasteful spending. Try to make a list of things that are actually wasteful, as opposed to things you don't personally approve of or think to be important in your little world.
For starters:
A real war on government waste could easily save over $100 billion annually without harming the legitimate operations and benefits of government programs. As a first step, lawmakers should address the 10 following examples of egregious waste.
Name some wasteful spending. Try to make a list of things that are actually wasteful, as opposed to things you don't personally approve of or think to be important in your little world.
Meanwhile, taxes are what government does. Public activity is publicly funded. Plans such as the one contemplated in this thread were under serious consideration at the highest level 30 years ago. Then Reagan came a long and killed them all (along with the renewable energy tax credits), putting all our national energy policy eggs into the one basket of the private sector. What have we gotten out of that in a generation and a half? SUV's. Now that an avoidable crisis has not been avoided and may in fact be almost upon us, it's about time people started demanding that we kick the people who either can't or won't do the job out of the decision-making loop and start actually accomplishing something. Whiners need not apply...
Still think there is no such thing as wasteful government spending? A government's business is to tax? Let me get this right, Reagan made SUV's come into the car scene? It wasn't because people actually like SUV's? Personally I think SUVs are attractive vehicles. I guess you prefer that everyone has to drive subcompact cars through government mandates. The fact that someone drives an SUV and PAYS for their own gas gives them the privilege to drive that car. You may not like it, but you don't control their lives either (I suppose you rather the government control what they drive, what they eat, and where they sleep). Gas prices are up, NOT because they are driving SUVs, in case you missed it... it was the war, the IRAQ war... which by the way, isn't done either and guess what.. gas prices are going up... Instead of whining about SUVs how about we focus on the REAL problems... wasteful government spending...
www.kansascity.com | 01/15/2008 | Federal commission seeks up to 40 cent-a-gallon increase in gas tax (broken link)
The gas tax has not been raised since 1993, and revenue has not kept up with every increasing expenses for road construction, maintenance, and transit.
Although raising the tax will be costly for everyone, I like it when bridges don't collapse while I am driving over them. Additionally, the tax should encourage fuel efficiency and transit use, which will cut our reliance on foreign oil.
I HATE IT!
Stupid idea on the brink of a recession / great depression and a collapsed housing market!
Yeah, I like driving over bridges that don't collapse too.......but maybe bridge maintenance inspectors SHOULD ACTUALLY DO THEIR JOBS!
Besides.......only THOUSANDS of bridges around America now that are structurally unsafe!
If ANOTHER tax at the pump on the price-gouged people IS to happen......then WHY not put THOUSANDS of people to work ALL across the country and build an entire NEW set of highways alongside the existing Interstates......molded after Germany's Autobahns?
SUPERFREEWAYS built for SPEED and a complete prohibition of ALL Semi's, trucks, motorhomes, etc. on them!
Keep "these" larger and slower vehicles on the existing and upgraded freeways and merge the two together when NECESSARY in the larger, more populated urban areas.
THIS should be good for America, IMO......esp. if THOUSANDS or a MILLION people would be hired FAST without needing to jump through a bunch of hoops to get working on it!
THIS COUNTRY NEEDS JOBS and innovation......especially for its future in mass transportation ALL across the country!
These new superhighways would NEED to cater to sheer SPEED......( 100 mph and up) and could ONLY be accessible by highly trained /skilled/educated drivers with strict driving classes necessary for their use (no gabbin on cell phones or texting while driving).....along with much better, fuel efficient and/or alternative fueled cars!
INNOVATION! The KEY to the future of America!
Other forms of FAST, mass-nationwide transit needs creation alongside this proposal and IF it would employ EVERY able-bodied person who WANTS to work on it at a REAL and DECENT living wage so as to be completed in the least amount of time......completed with NO shortcuts and done RIGHT.........
Yes.....THEN I would be supportive of another Federal Gas Tax.......even MORE than .40 cents!
Last edited by Skytripper; 01-16-2008 at 04:01 AM..
We should definitely step up discussions on mass transit, especially light rail, now before more companies move out of the cities and establish themselves in the suburbs. A mass transit system would provide for greater efficiency and conservation of resources.
My wife is about to lose her commuter lot near our house as a secondary highway widening and expansion project consumes the space. She will now need to travel farther in the opposite direction, if she wants to take the bus into work. The sad fact is that the space being taken was highly used for commuters and the new lot that will replace it is only about 1/3 the size.
A real war on government waste could easily save over $100 billion annually without harming the legitimate operations and benefits of government programs. As a first step, lawmakers should address the 10 following examples of egregious waste.
Not what the doctor ordered. The original plea was that Congress look for wasteful spending, cut that, and use the money for other things. What you've provided is not at all a list of such wasteful spending that Congress could cut, but rather a list of procedural inefficiencies, sloppy paperwork, and sometimes outright fraud by others that have occurred in the operation of perfectly well-justified spending programs that have made those programs less efficient than they might otherwise have been. Should we pull out of Iraq because the Bushies didn't bother to document what they did with $20 billion in 2003? Should we stop the use of government credit cards because $6 million in fraud was discovered when the program has saved ten times that in red-tape procurement costs? Should we really discontinue higher education student loans because some borrowers are in default? Should we halt the Earned Income Tax Credit because in some cases the forms are difficult to fill out and that can lead to overpayments? Basically, no. Your list does not identify a single program, or even as much as a program component, that Congress could or should defund. Instead, it focuses on particular operational practices within program implementing agencies that could or should have been tightened up, many of which have been since the date of this now four-year old report. 100% administrative efficiciency is not attainable and should not even be pursued. But the matter is in any case not related to the original claim. Your job was to provide examples of wasteful spending that Congress could cut, devoting the savings to other things. You didn't do that.
My question is why does the answer always come in the form of additional tax? Why does nobody in government ever come up with the idea that they can look at the wasteful spending, cut that, and use it to pay for things? When I need something, I can't force my employer to pay me more to cover it. I have to look and see where I can cut back. Citizens will have to do that in order to pay for the additional tax because the government refuses to do so.
Ron Paul does this but nobody wants to listen to him
See the above. The Bush administration's choice to use no-bid contracts within any program may well be an example of bad or even criminal program management on Bush's part, but it does not indicate that the program Congress authorized was an example of wasteful spending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie
A government's business is to tax?
That's right. Just like a corporation's job is to collect payment from its customers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie
Let me get this right, Reagan made SUV's come into the car scene? It wasn't because people actually like SUV's? Personally I think SUVs are attractive vehicles. I guess you prefer that everyone has to drive subcompact cars through government mandates.
Yes, he did. By scuttling all on-going efforts toward development and implementation of a national energy policy and encouraging his new-morning-in-America, rape-the-land alternative, Reagan set us directly on a path toward such things as a national vehicle fleet that is half as fuel-efficient as that in Europe. Half.
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie
The fact that someone drives an SUV and PAYS for their own gas gives them the privilege to drive that car.
Think of it this way: The combined cost of all the gas wasted by SUV's and other fuel-inefficient vehicles in this country is about $1,500 per second. That's half our consumption of 1,000 gallons per second at $3 per gallon. That's in excess of $45 billion per year. And you want to gripe over government waste.
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie
Instead of whining about SUVs how about we focus on the REAL problems... wasteful government spending...
The highly irresponsible Bush fiscal policy of the past seven years has absolutely ensured that federal revenue will have to be increased in some way. I'm not convinced that raising fuel taxes in the midst of record price hikes while we slip into a recession is a wise move, though.
The only upside I can see is that it may decrease demand for full-size SUVs that are driven by single occupants.
Not what the doctor ordered. The original plea was that Congress look for wasteful spending, cut that, and use the money for other things. What you've provided is not at all a list of such wasteful spending that Congress could cut, but rather a list of procedural inefficiencies, sloppy paperwork, and sometimes outright fraud by others that have occurred in the operation of perfectly well-justified spending programs that have made those programs less efficient than they might otherwise have been. Should we pull out of Iraq because the Bushies didn't bother to document what they did with $20 billion in 2003? Should we stop the use of government credit cards because $6 million in fraud was discovered when the program has saved ten times that in red-tape procurement costs? Should we really discontinue higher education student loans because some borrowers are in default? Should we halt the Earned Income Tax Credit because in some cases the forms are difficult to fill out and that can lead to overpayments? Basically, no. Your list does not identify a single program, or even as much as a program component, that Congress could or should defund. Instead, it focuses on particular operational practices within program implementing agencies that could or should have been tightened up, many of which have been since the date of this now four-year old report. 100% administrative efficiciency is not attainable and should not even be pursued. But the matter is in any case not related to the original claim. Your job was to provide examples of wasteful spending that Congress could cut, devoting the savings to other things. You didn't do that.
These all show that government apathy and carelessness with our money have allowed billions to be lost. Instead of ever considering addressing this, they want to force us to give more.
I'll speak from my own experience. I work with the juvenile delinquency population. The government continues to spend millions to fund programs with no evidence to support their effectiveness, and even worse, some have been shown to be harmful by research findings. They never ask for results to be demonstrated and continue to fund programs so they can tell people they're doing something. In addition, they continue to spend millions to fund research on ideas where there is never any intention of doing anything with the results or putting them into use in real world.
See the above. The Bush administration's choice to use no-bid contracts within any program may well be an example of bad or even criminal program management on Bush's part, but it does not indicate that the program Congress authorized was an example of wasteful spending.
Come again? The bridge to nowhere was not wasteful spending? And this is only a SMALL part of what Congress passed in earmarks... here is another list for you..
That's right. Just like a corporation's job is to collect payment from its customers.
When did income tax come into existence? Since the beginning? Nope... The government NEVER had income tax until.... hmmmm... when they needed money to lace someone else's pocket... I don't consider that a government duty... A corporation isn't to collect payment, its to sell you something whether its a service or goods, is decided by the company...
Quote:
Yes, he did. By scuttling all on-going efforts toward development and implementation of a national energy policy and encouraging his new-morning-in-America, rape-the-land alternative, Reagan set us directly on a path toward such things as a national vehicle fleet that is half as fuel-efficient as that in Europe. Half.
That is absurd as saying Reagan created Global Warming...
Quote:
Think of it this way: The combined cost of all the gas wasted by SUV's and other fuel-inefficient vehicles in this country is about $1,500 per second. That's half our consumption of 1,000 gallons per second at $3 per gallon. That's in excess of $45 billion per year. And you want to gripe over government waste.
Lets see... I drive and I pay... the government artificially creates a price increase with war... I pay more... so who cause the price increase? Oh yeah, the government. The fact that I drive an SUV or not didn't cause the price increase.. fuel-inefficient vehicles? I guess we should ban all NASCAR events, all construction machinery, all space trips, all ambulances, all truck drivers, etc. etc.... then mandate everyone to drive a pinto...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.