Great, the libs are at it
Thread Starter
lots and lots of fail
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,004
Likes: 1
From: Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeetroit
Whaaat? The people pay the taxes, not the government. More spending = more borrowing. More taxes = more taxes, not less borrowing. Budgets are based on the previous year's budget and are rarely rarely reduced in our government.
Wannabe yuppie
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 25,918
Likes: 0
From: Madison, WI
ANNNNYYYYWHOOOOOOOOO.........
All I'm going to do is post an actual article on this off Reuters, in the interest of showing the full story.
Lawmaker says fuel tax could fund bridge fixes
Reuters
Wednesday, August 8, 2007; 6:30 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A temporary tax on gasoline, diesel fuel or imported oil could provide billions of dollars for U.S. bridge upgrades, a leading congressional Democrat said on Wednesday.
Rep. James Oberstar, chairman of the House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, whose home state of Minnesota was the scene of the August 1 highway bridge collapse into the Mississippi River, said increased taxes on all three products could generate more than $40 billion over three years.
The figures were included in a highway bridge repair proposal unveiled by Oberstar as rescuers continued to search for victims from the collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis. So far, five deaths have been confirmed.
The disaster has focused attention on aging and sometimes crumbling U.S. highway infrastructure, and strategies to fund expensive upgrades and replacements.
According to Transportation Department figures, more than 73,000 bridges are structurally deficient. One half of all bridges are more than 40 years old.
Structurally deficient means a bridge has major deterioration, cracks or other flaws. Most bridges are inspected every two years.
"We must act and act quickly," Oberstar said of the need to address the problem.
He suggested that a three-year, 5 cents per gallon tax on gasoline and diesel fuel could generate approximately $25 billion for bridge reconstruction.
A $1 tax on each barrel of oil at the refinery stage, two thirds of which is imported, could bring in another $16 billion over the same period, Oberstar said.
The U.S. gasoline tax has been 18.4 cents per gallon since the early 1990s. The diesel fuel tax is 24.4 cents and there is no import fee on oil.
There has been little to no political will in Congress to raise gasoline taxes even though Oberstar and even some key Republicans supported the idea two years ago in highway construction legislation that included money for bridges. The Bush administration opposed the increase.
(Reporting by John Crawley)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080801953.html
All I'm going to do is post an actual article on this off Reuters, in the interest of showing the full story.
Lawmaker says fuel tax could fund bridge fixes
Reuters
Wednesday, August 8, 2007; 6:30 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A temporary tax on gasoline, diesel fuel or imported oil could provide billions of dollars for U.S. bridge upgrades, a leading congressional Democrat said on Wednesday.
Rep. James Oberstar, chairman of the House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, whose home state of Minnesota was the scene of the August 1 highway bridge collapse into the Mississippi River, said increased taxes on all three products could generate more than $40 billion over three years.
The figures were included in a highway bridge repair proposal unveiled by Oberstar as rescuers continued to search for victims from the collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis. So far, five deaths have been confirmed.
The disaster has focused attention on aging and sometimes crumbling U.S. highway infrastructure, and strategies to fund expensive upgrades and replacements.
According to Transportation Department figures, more than 73,000 bridges are structurally deficient. One half of all bridges are more than 40 years old.
Structurally deficient means a bridge has major deterioration, cracks or other flaws. Most bridges are inspected every two years.
"We must act and act quickly," Oberstar said of the need to address the problem.
He suggested that a three-year, 5 cents per gallon tax on gasoline and diesel fuel could generate approximately $25 billion for bridge reconstruction.
A $1 tax on each barrel of oil at the refinery stage, two thirds of which is imported, could bring in another $16 billion over the same period, Oberstar said.
The U.S. gasoline tax has been 18.4 cents per gallon since the early 1990s. The diesel fuel tax is 24.4 cents and there is no import fee on oil.
There has been little to no political will in Congress to raise gasoline taxes even though Oberstar and even some key Republicans supported the idea two years ago in highway construction legislation that included money for bridges. The Bush administration opposed the increase.
(Reporting by John Crawley)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080801953.html
Moderator
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,776
Likes: 0
People pay the taxes, and people pay the national debt.
Thread Starter
lots and lots of fail
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,004
Likes: 1
From: Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeetroit
No one pays the national debt. We don't have to. Would you pay off your credit cards if it didn't affect your credit not to? I sure as hell wouldn't. The USG will give you your money whenever you want, but they owe a loooooot of people and countries money.
The only thing that would pay the national debt is a planned contraction in the money supply or a budget surplus...neither will happen for a looooong time.
The only thing that would pay the national debt is a planned contraction in the money supply or a budget surplus...neither will happen for a looooong time.
Moderator
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,776
Likes: 0
No one pays the national debt. We don't have to. Would you pay off your credit cards if it didn't affect your credit not to? I sure as hell wouldn't. The USG will give you your money whenever you want, but they owe a loooooot of people and countries money.
The only thing that would pay the national debt is a planned contraction in the money supply or a budget surplus...neither will happen for a looooong time.
The only thing that would pay the national debt is a planned contraction in the money supply or a budget surplus...neither will happen for a looooong time.
We pay interest on the national debt annually. It's part of the budget.
AND a large portion of the national debt is owed to the Social Security Trust Fund. If we never pay the deficit back, how do you propose we pay people their benefits?
snitches get stitches
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 49,696
Likes: 1
From: Portland, OR
No one pays the national debt. We don't have to. Would you pay off your credit cards if it didn't affect your credit not to? I sure as hell wouldn't. The USG will give you your money whenever you want, but they owe a loooooot of people and countries money.
The only thing that would pay the national debt is a planned contraction in the money supply or a budget surplus...neither will happen for a looooong time.
The only thing that would pay the national debt is a planned contraction in the money supply or a budget surplus...neither will happen for a looooong time.
un-Touch'd krew
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 51,774
Likes: 1
From: My own level of hell
It's pretty simple
1) The USG can get whatever money it wants through borrowing and taxing
2) The USG gets an assload of money from borrowing already, we have a huge national debt...BUT...
3) The USG does not need to tax any more because it borrows BECAUSE...
4) The USG already does not spend money efficiently
This country was in part founded over tax issues. I find it amazing that 250 years later we're taxing the shit out of everyone and everything at the drop of a hat. Less government is the solution, not more taxes. More taxes gives the government an excuse to get bigger. That's my point which I guess I never stated.
The application to the gas tax is that what's the point of an extra 5 cent tax on every gallon of gas when the USG already rakes in unbelievable amounts of cash from taxes and borrowing? Why give them more? I just don't see the point.
1) The USG can get whatever money it wants through borrowing and taxing
2) The USG gets an assload of money from borrowing already, we have a huge national debt...BUT...
3) The USG does not need to tax any more because it borrows BECAUSE...
4) The USG already does not spend money efficiently
This country was in part founded over tax issues. I find it amazing that 250 years later we're taxing the shit out of everyone and everything at the drop of a hat. Less government is the solution, not more taxes. More taxes gives the government an excuse to get bigger. That's my point which I guess I never stated.
The application to the gas tax is that what's the point of an extra 5 cent tax on every gallon of gas when the USG already rakes in unbelievable amounts of cash from taxes and borrowing? Why give them more? I just don't see the point.
__________________
"I'll keep my money, guns and freedom. You can keep the "Change."
"I'll keep my money, guns and freedom. You can keep the "Change."
Thread Starter
lots and lots of fail
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,004
Likes: 1
From: Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeetroit
You are wrong Chris...the government cannot just arbitrarily print more money or take a loan at will. There has to be something of substance in return for these loans. Usually it falls into long term trade agreements with other countries or some other form of assistance to another country in order to get large quantities of money
snitches get stitches
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 49,696
Likes: 1
From: Portland, OR
Actually, the government can print money to pay off bonds if it wants. It's bad practice, but it's possible. The only thing the USG needs to attract investors is a reasonable rate of return. Bonds and notes are repaid at an interest rate and are "risk-free", making them attractive long term investments. 6% APR is pretty good on millions of dollars.
un-Touch'd krew
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 51,774
Likes: 1
From: My own level of hell
Actually, the government can print money to pay off bonds if it wants. It's bad practice, but it's possible. The only thing the USG needs to attract investors is a reasonable rate of return. Bonds and notes are repaid at an interest rate and are "risk-free", making them attractive long term investments. 6% APR is pretty good on millions of dollars.
No it is a devestating blow to our inflationary values and the wealth of the entire country when they decide to "fire up the presses and make more money".
Do you not understand the idea that money is just glorified paper if there is nothing behind it to back it up?
I am with RB on this one, you have no clue of what you are arguing in the least and don't really understand how money and the Treasury department work.
__________________
"I'll keep my money, guns and freedom. You can keep the "Change."
"I'll keep my money, guns and freedom. You can keep the "Change."