View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently December 19th, 2014, 4:14 pm



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 285 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 19  Next
 Rashard Mendenhall (Now with socialism) 
Author Message
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9984
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
OK, so you claim we don't know why we dislike Obama, and can't give a reason? Here's freakin' reason for you.

Quote:
Obama administration floats draft plan to tax cars by the mile
By Pete Kasperowicz - 05/05/11 07:45 AM ET

The Obama administration has floated a transportation authorization bill that would require the study and implementation of a plan to tax automobile drivers based on how many miles they drive.

The plan is a part of the administration's Transportation Opportunities Act, an undated draft of which was obtained this week by Transportation Weekly.


The White House, however, said the bill is only an early draft that was not formally circulated within the administration.

“This is not an administration proposal," White House spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said. "This is not a bill supported by the administration. This was an early working draft proposal that was never formally circulated within the administration, does not taken into account the advice of the president’s senior advisers, economic team or Cabinet officials, and does not represent the views of the president.”


News of the draft follows a March Congressional Budget Office report that supported the idea of taxing drivers based on miles driven.

Among other things, CBO suggested that a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax could be tracked by installing electronic equipment on each car to determine how many miles were driven; payment could take place electronically at filling stations.


The CBO report was requested by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who has proposed taxing cars by the mile as a way to increase federal highway revenues.

The proposal seems to follow up on that idea in section 2218 of the draft bill. That section would create, within the Federal Highway Administration, a Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office. It would be tasked with creating a "study framework that defines the functionality of a mileage-based user fee system and other systems."

RELATED ARTICLES
•White House disowns plan to tax mileage
•GOPers tweet opposition
The department seemed to be aware of the need to prepare the public for what would likely be a controversial change to the way highway funds are collected. For example, the office is called on to serve a public-relations function, as the draft says it should "increase public awareness regarding the need for an alternative funding source for surface transportation programs and provide information on possible approaches."

The draft bill says the "study framework" for the project and a public awareness communications plan should be established within two years of creating the office, and that field tests should begin within four years.

The office would be required to consider four factors in field trials: the capability of states to enforce payment, the reliability of technology, administrative costs and "user acceptance." The draft does not specify where field trials should begin.

The new office would be funded a total of $300 million through fiscal 2017 for the project.



This douchebag president is so out of touch reality it gives me a headache thinking about it. We already have taxes at the pumps, now he wants to tax you for how many miles you drive. They push for "alternative" energies to reduce American reliance on foreign oil, but then want to make sure they still get their pound of flesh via taxes. And for those who still use internal combusion vehicles burning petroleum it's a double whammy, in addition to having yet another invasion of our privacy.

Obama is a suckhole. These are HIS cronies coming up with this crap.

_________________
I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.


May 19th, 2011, 11:05 am
Profile
Varsity Captain

Joined: April 1st, 2009, 9:37 pm
Posts: 312
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
m2karateman wrote:
OK, so you claim we don't know why we dislike Obama, and can't give a reason? Here's freakin' reason for you.

Quote:
Obama administration floats draft plan to tax cars by the mile
By Pete Kasperowicz - 05/05/11 07:45 AM ET

The Obama administration has floated a transportation authorization bill that would require the study and implementation of a plan to tax automobile drivers based on how many miles they drive.

The plan is a part of the administration's Transportation Opportunities Act, an undated draft of which was obtained this week by Transportation Weekly.


The White House, however, said the bill is only an early draft that was not formally circulated within the administration.

“This is not an administration proposal," White House spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said. "This is not a bill supported by the administration. This was an early working draft proposal that was never formally circulated within the administration, does not taken into account the advice of the president’s senior advisers, economic team or Cabinet officials, and does not represent the views of the president.”


News of the draft follows a March Congressional Budget Office report that supported the idea of taxing drivers based on miles driven.

Among other things, CBO suggested that a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax could be tracked by installing electronic equipment on each car to determine how many miles were driven; payment could take place electronically at filling stations.


The CBO report was requested by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who has proposed taxing cars by the mile as a way to increase federal highway revenues.

The proposal seems to follow up on that idea in section 2218 of the draft bill. That section would create, within the Federal Highway Administration, a Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office. It would be tasked with creating a "study framework that defines the functionality of a mileage-based user fee system and other systems."

RELATED ARTICLES
•White House disowns plan to tax mileage
•GOPers tweet opposition
The department seemed to be aware of the need to prepare the public for what would likely be a controversial change to the way highway funds are collected. For example, the office is called on to serve a public-relations function, as the draft says it should "increase public awareness regarding the need for an alternative funding source for surface transportation programs and provide information on possible approaches."

The draft bill says the "study framework" for the project and a public awareness communications plan should be established within two years of creating the office, and that field tests should begin within four years.

The office would be required to consider four factors in field trials: the capability of states to enforce payment, the reliability of technology, administrative costs and "user acceptance." The draft does not specify where field trials should begin.

The new office would be funded a total of $300 million through fiscal 2017 for the project.



This douchebag president is so out of touch reality it gives me a headache thinking about it. We already have taxes at the pumps, now he wants to tax you for how many miles you drive. They push for "alternative" energies to reduce American reliance on foreign oil, but then want to make sure they still get their pound of flesh via taxes. And for those who still use internal combusion vehicles burning petroleum it's a double whammy, in addition to having yet another invasion of our privacy.

Obama is a suckhole. These are HIS cronies coming up with this crap.


I think i remember hearing something about current taxes not covering infrastructure expenses.

So, the government maintains the roads that you drive your car on, and if you dont pay your share of taxes to keep those those usable (for you) then the government should pick up the rest of the check? no.


May 19th, 2011, 11:33 am
Profile
Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2828
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
The current taxes don't cover the infrastructure costs because they've ignored them for decades and spent the money on other things. The Government has a spending problem. You honestly think those new taxes will go to fix infrastructure?

Just look at NJ. We built the NJ parkway with a toll system designed to pay off the road in 1946. Tolls are up to $1 every 20-40 miles. They will always find a way to spend any money they bring in. Its just an excuse


May 19th, 2011, 11:40 am
Profile
Varsity Captain

Joined: April 1st, 2009, 9:37 pm
Posts: 312
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
slybri19 wrote:
aughsum wrote:
Thanks for reminding me why I hate discussing politics.

I used to hate discussing politics too, but then Obama came along and the rest is history


Are you holding Mayhew responsible for the mess he inherited?

slybri19 wrote:
aughsum wrote:
A few posts ago, about three words after I referred to myself as a socialist, I clarified my position. Were I a purebred socialist, I would have omitted the second part; were I a purebred (whatever I am), I would have o otter the socialist part.

But you did, so it's fair game. Whenever a conservative makes a slip of the tongue or mis-speaks, the lamestream libtard media is all over them, so I'm all about giving it back to their kind when they do the same. You reap what you sow.


So, someone on television, who gets paid to entertain like-minded viewers, casts aside reason and restraint to critisize oposing opinions, so you do the same thing in real life? It's not just you, that seems to be the typical Conservative mindset.

aughsum wrote:
I'd like to see congress reformed, the current structure is ripe for corruption - little to no accountability, rampant beauocracy.

Hey, we actually agree upon something. As a supply sergeant in the US Army for 8-1/2 years, I saw first hand how corrupt, inefficient, lazy, and basically useless the DOD civilian employees of the bloated bureaucracy actually were. I also see how corrupt politicans have become in Congress and throughout government and see a need for extensive reforms. But, I'm mostly in favor of voting the bums out and will do my best to do so in the next election. My activism and networking run deep.

slybri19 wrote:
aughsum wrote:
Obama is one man, he's not some kind of god - it's funny how anti-Obama people can't really put into words why, exactly, they're anti-Obama.

Huh? Just read the Obama Bashing Thread. I have hundreds of examples in there. He has surrounded himself with socialists/communists/Marxists/statists/Maoists, etc. as Czars and non-Senate confirmed advisors. If he didn't agree with their thinking, why would he appoint so many of them to positions not needing Senate confirmation? Furthermore, he panders to special interests (unions, environmentalists, illegal immigrants, etc.) more than any other President I've ever seen. He also promised transparency, but has been the least transparent President in memory. And don't even get me started on his lies. I have yet to see a speech where he hasn't lied or misrepresented the truth atleast once. Words can not adequately describe how much I HATE that scumbag.


How much of a landslide do you think 2012 will be? record-setting, I bet.

slybri19 wrote:
aughsum wrote:
I don't really get the part about only the elites collecting a paycheck - I think you may have run out of talking points, as happens early-on in every political conversation I've ever been involved in.

That was a joke, but what do you want to talk about? Let's try how human nature leads to socialism's failure? Or how about socialism's dismal record throughout human existence? We could also try how the redistribution of wealth leads to more poverty and not less. How about why the motive of profit in private industry is more efficient than a collective state mentality in the public sector? We could also discuss why business is leaving high tax states for lower tax states (or countries for that matter)? I could go on and on and on. Try me sometime and don't assume for a second that I'll run out of "talking points".


So, because the chargers drafted Ryan Leaf and he bombed, the Lions shouldn't have drafted Stafford?

slybri19 wrote:
aughsum wrote:
This really isn't getting anywhere, me continuing to respond to this is just as childish as you keeping going with this. There really is nothing to argue - I have my views, you have yours, were both entitled to separate opinions - I don't care about yours, you shouldn't care about mine.

You couldn't be more wrong. A good, honest, healthy debate on the issues is an integral part of out republic. Besides, I'm looking forward to destroying any socialist argument you put out there. You see, I value free speech. Do you support it if it doesn't agree with your agenda? I'm game. Are you?


Even my opinions on opinions are wrong? I value free-speech too - if someone says something that catches my interest, i'll adopt it into my way of thinking, you haven't done that.


Last edited by anon749244 on May 19th, 2011, 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.



May 19th, 2011, 11:46 am
Profile
Varsity Captain

Joined: April 1st, 2009, 9:37 pm
Posts: 312
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
njroar wrote:
The current taxes don't cover the infrastructure costs because they've ignored them for decades and spent the money on other things. The Government has a spending problem. You honestly think those new taxes will go to fix infrastructure?

Just look at NJ. We built the NJ parkway with a toll system designed to pay off the road in 1946. Tolls are up to $1 every 20-40 miles. They will always find a way to spend any money they bring in. Its just an excuse


Yes - different president, massively cutting spending (ala Rick Snyder).. The country is broken and he's trying to fix it.


May 19th, 2011, 11:48 am
Profile
Varsity Captain

Joined: April 1st, 2009, 9:37 pm
Posts: 312
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
m2karateman wrote:
aughsum wrote:
More government management does not equal more government.


Then please explain....what exactly IS more government to you? From my standpoint, saying I want less government implies I want less government oversight and regulations, less government sponsored programs intended to do good, but drain the taxpayers due to poorly worded rules. Less government, to me, means less government involvement and control.



aughsum wrote:
So.. The dumbest/trashiest 20% of the population isn't responsible for a much larger percentage of the nations programs? Never changed my stance on that either - you guys are interpeting my posts in a way that gives you the ability to respond to them objectively, not as they were intended.


No, actually, they aren't RESPONSIBLE for them, they were the excuse for the creation of them. The 20% of the population you speak of didn't create those programs and vote them into existence. Our elected officials did that. So I don't hold them responsible for the creation of the programs or the loopholes that our "legal beagles" wrote into the regulations governing those programs. Less government involvement would be our government telling those 20% that they won't get state or federal welfare, so they need to deal with life as they've made it for themselves. Sounds simple enough to me.

aughsum wrote:
Everyone has seen that story on the news.. What's your point? Is e lottery guy a liberal? Dd I say I have anything against conservatives? No? Then why are you being defensive? The only thing I've noticed conservatives doing lately is being involved in gay sex scandals. There, I bit.


My point is who is the real cause of the issue? Is it the lottery winner who is playing by the rules, no matter how immoral it may be, or is it the government officials who created the program and wrote the rules he's playing by? My vote is the latter. And that is the issue with more government, they have good intentions but everything they touch becomes a farce.

I agree with your statements about restructuring all of the government. I'd love to see us start anew, re-elect all of Congress, all of the Senate, and that a better system be put in place all around. It should be easier to cast out officials that don't follow the will of the People, but only follow their own selfish agendas. Same goes for the President. The only thing that should remain unscathed is the Constitution of the United States. There is not one thing wrong with that document. The only thing wrong is all the legal idiots that feel they need to spin their own interpretations into it. They should all be shot.


You agree with my statements on restructuring of the government, and those are the only points I was aiming to make - so we're done here.


May 19th, 2011, 11:56 am
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
aughsam wrote:
Are you holding Mayhew responsible for the mess he inherited?


Why would I do that? Mayhew is actually fixing the mess he inherited, while Obama is making the situation worse.

aughsam wrote:
So, someone on television, who gets paid to entertain like-minded viewers, casts aside reason and restraint to critisize oposing opinions, so you do the same thing in real life? It's not just you, that seems to be the typical Conservative mindset.

Libtards perfected criticizing opposing opinion by embracing Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals" in the 70's. Now, I've embraced those same principles to give them a taste of their own medicine. It's no wonder that they (or you) don't like it and complain about it.

aughsam wrote:
How much of a landslide do you think 2012 will be? record-setting, I bet.

That comment only shows how delusional you truly are. While Obama may be the favorite to win re-election, he will come nowhere close to winning 49 states like Reagan did in 1984.

aughsam wrote:
So, because the chargers drafted Ryan Leaf and he bombed, the Lions shouldn't have drafted Stafford?

Comments like that are why I can't take libtards seriously. You really ought to attempt reading comprehension some time. Peyton Manning worked out just fine, so your argument is useless. Name one communist/socialist country that has succeeded over any length of time? You can't. And before you mention China, they didn't become an economic power until they began allowing capitalism. Try again.

aughsam wrote:
Even my opinions on opinions are wrong? I value free-speech too - if someone says something that catches my interest, i'll adopt it into my way of thinking, you haven't done that.

Well, if you ever say "something that catches my interest", I may "adopt it into my way of thinking" as well, but I won't be holding my breath waiting for that to happen. :lol:

_________________
Image


May 19th, 2011, 8:34 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9984
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
aughsum wrote:
I think i remember hearing something about current taxes not covering infrastructure expenses.

So, the government maintains the roads that you drive your car on, and if you dont pay your share of taxes to keep those those usable (for you) then the government should pick up the rest of the check? no.


Are you joking me with this? How much is our gas taxed? THAT money was supposed to be used to improve and sustain the infrastructure of the road system in the United States, remember? Obviously you don't.

I would be willing to bet a LARGE sum of cash that if we totaled up the amount of money collected through the federal and state gas taxes, the other various fees charged (car registration, drivers license, etc.) that are supposed to be used to help the upkeep on our roads, we'd find that the amount collected would be FAR greater than what is actually being spent on the roads on a per year basis.

And I guarantee you, I GUARANTEE YOU, that if this stupidass idea went into effect, the next thing this suckhole would do is tax mass transit to high heaven so that he wouldn't miss anyone not driving a car. Talk about exploiting the poor.......and they're the dummies that elected this pile of steaming crap.


ADDED: Oh, and let's be VERY clear on something, shall we? The United States government does NOT have any money, none, zip zero. The only money they have belongs NOT to the government, but to the PEOPLE who have paid their taxes (which automatically discludes about half of Congress). That money does not belong to the politicians, but instead they are charged with spending it for OUR benefits. It's something that they've LOOOOOOONG forgotten.

_________________
I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.


May 19th, 2011, 9:05 pm
Profile
Varsity Captain

Joined: April 1st, 2009, 9:37 pm
Posts: 312
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
slybri19 wrote:
aughsam wrote:
Are you holding Mayhew responsible for the mess he inherited?


Why would I do that? Mayhew is actually fixing the mess he inherited, while Obama is making the situation worse.

aughsam wrote:
So, someone on television, who gets paid to entertain like-minded viewers, casts aside reason and restraint to critisize oposing opinions, so you do the same thing in real life? It's not just you, that seems to be the typical Conservative mindset.

Libtards perfected criticizing opposing opinion by embracing Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals" in the 70's. Now, I've embraced those same principles to give them a taste of their own medicine. It's no wonder that they (or you) don't like it and complain about it.

aughsam wrote:
How much of a landslide do you think 2012 will be? record-setting, I bet.

That comment only shows how delusional you truly are. While Obama may be the favorite to win re-election, he will come nowhere close to winning 49 states like Reagan did in 1984.

aughsam wrote:
So, because the chargers drafted Ryan Leaf and he bombed, the Lions shouldn't have drafted Stafford?

Comments like that are why I can't take libtards seriously. You really ought to attempt reading comprehension some time. Peyton Manning worked out just fine, so your argument is useless. Name one communist/socialist country that has succeeded over any length of time? You can't. And before you mention China, they didn't become an economic power until they began allowing capitalism. Try again.

aughsam wrote:
Even my opinions on opinions are wrong? I value free-speech too - if someone says something that catches my interest, i'll adopt it into my way of thinking, you haven't done that.

Well, if you ever say "something that catches my interest", I may "adopt it into my way of thinking" as well, but I won't be holding my breath waiting for that to happen. :lol:


You think he's making it worse - I think he's making it better. You can't go through life jumping down the throat of every liberal you meet, I mean you can, but you'll be a social liability, especially if said liberal isn't confrontational about anything, but I guess we unconsciously pick up behaviors from our role-models.. Rush?

All-knowing and clairvoyant? Impressive.

Speaking of reading comprehension, Peyton Manning? I think you missed that one entirely. Because other socialist contries have failed, we will follow suit? Do you even see how flawed that logic is?

I don't exactly roll like that, I don't have a compulsion to push my beliefs onto others (as you obviously do have).


Last edited by anon749244 on May 19th, 2011, 9:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.



May 19th, 2011, 9:23 pm
Profile
Varsity Captain

Joined: April 1st, 2009, 9:37 pm
Posts: 312
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
m2karateman wrote:
aughsum wrote:
I think i remember hearing something about current taxes not covering infrastructure expenses.

So, the government maintains the roads that you drive your car on, and if you dont pay your share of taxes to keep those those usable (for you) then the government should pick up the rest of the check? no.


Are you joking me with this? How much is our gas taxed? THAT money was supposed to be used to improve and sustain the infrastructure of the road system in the United States, remember? Obviously you don't.

I would be willing to bet a LARGE sum of cash that if we totaled up the amount of money collected through the federal and state gas taxes, the other various fees charged (car registration, drivers license, etc.) that are supposed to be used to help the upkeep on our roads, we'd find that the amount collected would be FAR greater than what is actually being spent on the roads on a per year basis.

And I guarantee you, I GUARANTEE YOU, that if this stupidass idea went into effect, the next thing this suckhole would do is tax mass transit to high heaven so that he wouldn't miss anyone not driving a car. Talk about exploiting the poor.......and they're the dummies that elected this pile of steaming crap.


ADDED: Oh, and let's be VERY clear on something, shall we? The United States government does NOT have any money, none, zip zero. The only money they have belongs NOT to the government, but to the PEOPLE who have paid their taxes (which automatically discludes about half of Congress). That money does not belong to the politicians, but instead they are charged with spending it for OUR benefits. It's something that they've LOOOOOOONG forgotten.


It's my belief that they should heavily subsidize electric cars and heavily tax gas to push people off of gasoline entirely.


May 19th, 2011, 9:26 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2785
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
Quote:
It's my belief that they should heavily subsidize electric cars and heavily tax gas to push people off of gasoline entirely.


But what if you're wrong?

The government has been heavily subsidizing ICE cars for 80 years now. We spend billions on building roads for them. We go to war to get the fuel to run them. That needs to stop, to be sure.

But what if the answer isn't electric cars? What if its cars run on natural gas? Or hydrogen? Or ethanol? What if its less ICE cars, but more mass transit systems?

There is no way to know what the optimal outcome is. The only way to determine that is through the free market. And that is why socialism is a bogus ideology.

Quote:
I believe the goverment has the right idea, but needs a complete overhaul. People are as dumb as I make them out to be, and they need to have functional systems in place so they can continue to function


People are dumb and most cannot manage their lives. I'll give you that. But then why do you propose that they have their lives managed by a bureaucrat who is--I don't know if you know this--also a (dumb) person?


May 19th, 2011, 10:16 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
aughsum wrote:
You think he's making it worse - I think he's making it better. You can't go through life jumping down the throat of every liberal you meet, I mean you can, but you'll be a social liability, especially if said liberal isn't confrontational about anything, but I guess we unconsciously pick up behaviors from our role-models.. Rush?

All-knowing and clairvoyant? Impressive.

Speaking of reading comprehension, Peyton Manning? I think you missed that one entirely. Because other socialist contries have failed, we will follow suit? Do you even see how flawed that logic is?

I don't exactly roll like that, I don't have a compulsion to push my beliefs onto others (as you obviously do have).



Where do I begin with this drivel? :roll:

First of all, the free market system self adjusts and the private sector will recover from a recession on it's own without government intervention. But unfortunately, Obama needed to meddle in things he didn't understand, and now, we have a slower recovery than what we would have had otherwise. And to make matters worse, we have over $3 Trillion of new debt to show for it. I used to complain about Bush's $300B deficits, but that's nothing compared to Obama's $1.6T deficit this year. How is that better?

All-knowing? I think not. I learn more and more about Obama's corruption every day. Clairvoyant? If using common sense, facts, history, and realism to put two and two together better than most, perhaps I am.

On the socialist/QB front, you are comparing apples to oranges. I stated the fact that all socialist countries have failed to achieve their utopia and the US would suffer a similar fate if it followed down that path. You brought up Ryan Leaf's failure and surmised that Stafford would also fail by my way of thinking. I countered with a successful highly drafted QB in Manning, but you have yet to offer a successful socialist country to counter my argument that all socialist countries fail. Of course, it is impossible to do so.

As for pushing my beliefs upon others, I prefer to think of it as educating the people. I especially like to inform the Independents, moderates, and those that aren't into politics at all about the dangers of socialism. Also, I've learned that the vast majority of libtards are a lost cause, so I just choose to belittle them instead. That's how I roll! :lol:

Oops, I almost forgot. I don't listen to Rush or any other political talk radio programs, but I do watch Fox News several hours each day! :D

_________________
Image


May 19th, 2011, 11:29 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
To answer M2K's earlier question about gas taxes, the federal gasoline excise tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. Since the US uses approximately 378 million gallons of gas per day, that equates to $69 million of taxes per day or $25 billion per year. The Federal Highway Administration has a budget of approximately $42 billion per year, of which $15 billion is spent toward road and bridge improvements. Therefore, only 60% of the gas tax revenue is spent toward it's intended purpose.

I should add that the states and local governments add additional taxes on gas to bring the average total to 48.1 cents per gallon. That brings the total government taxes on gas to over $66 billion per year. If all of that money were spent on it's intended purposes, we would have the best roads in the world. Unfortunately, it isn't, so we do not.

With all that in mind, has anybody noticed how Obama is blaming the oil companies for the high gas prices and raping the consumer? What he fails to mention is that they average a 7 cent profit per gallon of gas sold. Meanwhile, the government is taking in 48 cents per gallon sold. So, who is doing the raping of the consumer here? The oil companies or the government?

_________________
Image


May 20th, 2011, 12:17 am
Profile
Varsity Captain

Joined: April 1st, 2009, 9:37 pm
Posts: 312
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
slybri19 wrote:
aughsum wrote:
You think he's making it worse - I think he's making it better. You can't go through life jumping down the throat of every liberal you meet, I mean you can, but you'll be a social liability, especially if said liberal isn't confrontational about anything, but I guess we unconsciously pick up behaviors from our role-models.. Rush?

All-knowing and clairvoyant? Impressive.

Speaking of reading comprehension, Peyton Manning? I think you missed that one entirely. Because other socialist contries have failed, we will follow suit? Do you even see how flawed that logic is?

I don't exactly roll like that, I don't have a compulsion to push my beliefs onto others (as you obviously do have).



Where do I begin with this drivel? :roll:

First of all, the free market system self adjusts and the private sector will recover from a recession on it's own without government intervention. But unfortunately, Obama needed to meddle in things he didn't understand, and now, we have a slower recovery than what we would have had otherwise. And to make matters worse, we have over $3 Trillion of new debt to show for it. I used to complain about Bush's $300B deficits, but that's nothing compared to Obama's $1.6T deficit this year. How is that better?

All-knowing? I think not. I learn more and more about Obama's corruption every day. Clairvoyant? If using common sense, facts, history, and realism to put two and two together better than most, perhaps I am.

On the socialist/QB front, you are comparing apples to oranges. I stated the fact that all socialist countries have failed to achieve their utopia and the US would suffer a similar fate if it followed down that path. You brought up Ryan Leaf's failure and surmised that Stafford would also fail by my way of thinking. I countered with a successful highly drafted QB in Manning, but you have yet to offer a successful socialist country to counter my argument that all socialist countries fail. Of course, it is impossible to do so.

As for pushing my beliefs upon others, I prefer to think of it as educating the people. I especially like to inform the Independents, moderates, and those that aren't into politics at all about the dangers of socialism. Also, I've learned that the vast majority of libtards are a lost cause, so I just choose to belittle them instead. That's how I roll! :lol:

Oops, I almost forgot. I don't listen to Rush or any other political talk radio programs, but I do watch Fox News several hours each day! :D


Is that what you're doing? Belittling my views, because I've been belittling yours as well. How does that work? Who is at the position of power in this argument if both parties have the same footing? Honestly, if you said something political that worked, I'd give you credit for it, but everything you're saying is some witch-doctor ish that can't be predicted using examples from history with different variables. I'm not even disputing some of the politics-related things you're saying, I'm just making fun of your apparent war on logic.

You're essentially saying that, because no other civilizations have successfully established socialist structure, we will also fail - if everyone subscribed to your way of thinking.. I don't think I need to point out out how ridiculous your arument is.

Maybe that's our disconnect - my views are derived from years of bored research - if I'm interested in something, I'll learn about the things involved with that something, and from there, I'll draw my own assumptions and come to my own conclusions.


May 20th, 2011, 12:20 am
Profile
Varsity Captain

Joined: April 1st, 2009, 9:37 pm
Posts: 312
Post Re: Rashard Mendenhall
slybri19 wrote:
To answer M2K's earlier question about gas taxes, the federal gasoline excise tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. Since the US uses approximately 378 million gallons of gas per day, that equates to $69 million of taxes per day or $25 billion per year. The Federal Highway Administration has a budget of approximately $42 billion per year, of which $15 billion is spent toward road and bridge improvements. Therefore, only 60% of the gas tax revenue is spent toward it's intended purpose.

I should add that the states and local governments add additional taxes on gas to bring the average total to 48.1 cents per gallon. That brings the total government taxes on gas to over $66 billion per year. If all of that money were spent on it's intended purposes, we would have the best roads in the world. Unfortunately, it isn't, so we do not.

With all that in mind, has anybody noticed how Obama is blaming the oil companies for the high gas prices and raping the consumer? What he fails to mention is that they average a 7 cent profit per gallon of gas sold. Meanwhile, the government is taking in 48 cents per gallon sold. So, who is doing the raping of the consumer here? The oil companies or the government?


By this logic, gov taxes account for ~12% of the price of a gallon of gas, yet the last sentence points the finger back at the government.


May 20th, 2011, 12:29 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.   [ 285 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 19  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.