Heywood

Obama and several of the other Democratic candidates already indicated they WILL raise taxes on the "rich" if they win the Presidency and keep control of congress. Obama let the cat out of the bag that his definition of "rich" means $250K and up. You hourly labor lineworkers may not like to hear this, but $250K is NOT rich, especially in places where taxes are high like in California, New York, or the Northeast. Add it high housing costs, and $250K doesn't go as far as you think it would. FYI, the "rich" get the biggest tax cuts because they pay most of the taxes!!!! And they deserve it, too. The top 10% of wage earners pay about 65% of the total tax revenue, and the top 5% pay over 50% of revenue. Those people are usually risk-taking entrepreneurs who actually create jobs. By contrast, many people at the bottom pay little or no taxes at all. In my book, you can't get a tax break unless you pay some taxes!

Congrats, people! I love my Lincoln LS!!!! I thought my 2003 LS was great, but my 06 is even better! Its a darn shame that the Wixom plant had to close.

What's to explain? It shows CAFE requirements going up over 20 years, just like you asked for. If you want more info, google it yourself.

Here you go... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CAFEStandard.png

Congress just passed a $2.9 TRILLION budget. I have a hard time understanding that with that mind-boggling amount of money, any program is "underfunded". But assuming you are right, raising the tax now will put more burden on people already struggling with high gasoline prices (especially the usual victims: women, minorities, the poor, etc.). I don't think people will stand for that. Gasoline is like food today -- you have to have it to live your life. Its all fine to work on renewable energy sources, hydrogen, etc., but for the immediate term, gasoline and oil power our economy and they are needed by everyone. What about this catch-22: The government has steadily been increasing the fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. Since cars today use less gas and get better MPG than in previous years, less gas is being used. Since less gas is being used, less gas tax revenue is flowing to the government. Could this be the source of the "underfunded" Highway Trust Fund you mentioned??

BINGO! Thanks for saying this! Its nice to see actual facts around here, instead of more conspiracy theories. I would add that in 2001 as part of the Energy Task Force, VP Cheney actually recommended a serious reduction in the number of fuel blend types required in various regions of the country. Reducing the fuel blends from 30 to 6 or 8 would increase supplies and drop prices.

I agree, most people on this board don't understand basic economics. The conspiracy theories that are bandied about are purely unsupported allegations, and have no basis in reality. Every time gas prices go over some threshhold amount, various state and federal investigations are undertaken, and except for one or two unscrupulous filling station owners, there is no finding of mass price gouging ever. Yet despite no findings of gouging, price fixing, or price manipulation, some people still believe Big Oil is out to gouge them, or that Bush, Cheney, and Rove are somehow "setting" the price. I don't get it. Gas prices are a function of many factors, and are not immune to the laws of supply and demand. Right now, the demand is high and the supply is low. Result is higher prices. Here's one factor people may not know. Did you know that about 13% of our GASOLINE is imported? I'm talking about GASOLINE, not oil. This is being done by the oil companies in an attempt to meet the current demands because domestic refining capacity is maxed out. The foreign gasoline refiners are not as efficient and are having a hard time trying to meet all the local gasoline requirements, etc. Add in the transportation costs and it doesn't take a genius to see how this would impact prices. I heard one politician on NPR the other morning rhetorically asking what lawmakers can do NOW to reduce gas prices. The answer is REDUCE THE TAXES ON GAS! Unlike other measures (e.g., building new refineries, etc.) which would take many years to see an impact on prices, the price of gas could be cut significantly tomorrow if lawmakers would just reduce the taxes paid. All you UAW folks who will soon be out of jobs should go back to school and take some economics classes.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWQyN...TBkOWU2OWM5ZGY= Food for thought for you labor goons. Get out now while the getting out is good!

Let me get this straight: You played Hide the Blood Sausage with him not once, not twice, but 5 times, and its Ford's fault? You've got to be kidding! So much for "learning from it and moving on". If you think your kids deserve a good life, maybe you can get them jobs as autoworkers. Just think of it, fully paid benefits, high salary, no need for anything more than a High School education, and discounts on cars. And they may not even have to do any real work if the get added to the GEN pool. Wow!

I disagree. The fundamental principles are the same. Tax cuts work to stimulate the economy every time they are tried. They worked when JFK cut taxes, they worked when Reagan did it, and it worked again when Bush did it. How much more proof do you need? You minimize the combined effect of the recession, scanals and 9/11. We were attacked horribly on 9/11, and your statement makes it sound like its something we just have to live with. I disagree. If we can increase our security by eliminating a despotic bully like Saddam, who started two wars with his neighbors, used poison gas on his own people, funded Hezbollah and Hammas (terrorist organizations!), tried to have Bush 41 assasinated, and kept his own people in fear for their lives, I'm all for it. Saddam is gone and will be hanged. And I say hurray. Are you saying the Department of Homeland Security was a waste and should not have been implemented? You're missing the larger picture here. Yes, the deficit went up, but we were at war. Helllloooo, what's so hard to understand about that? You must think that doing all the stuff we did should not have happened because it would increase the deficit. I know about 3000 dead Americans who would disagree. It really is simple, if you understand economics and human nature. Why do you think it is so complicated? Tax cuts work to increase money flowing into the government coffers every time it is tried, and that money will be used to pay down the deficit in record time. Its already begun. The Reagan tax cuts created the economic boom in the 1990s (which Clinton took credit for), and the Bush tax cuts will create a booming economy in the coming years. Its quite simple really.

Here's a recent link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...t-deficit_x.htm Frankly, I do not understand the obsession of some folks here with the deficit. Yes, its big, but its getting smaller, and doesn't have a large impact on individuals. I like Ronald Reagan's quote, when he said "The deficit is big enough to take care of itself." Maybe its just me, but I think you guys are just looking for bad things to say because you don't like Bush. I note that the same things about the deficit were said about Reagan when he left office. However, comparing where we were in 1981 (remember the Misery Index?) to where we were in 1989 shows how much better the economy was under his policies, in spite of a perceived large deficit. There is plenty of good news about the economy. See, for example, this link: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2006/10/the_roaring_economy.php Actually, it can work. It's the same strategy Reagan used to build up the military to counter the Soviet Union, but still cutting taxes. Rising revenue from tax cuts can pay for the increases in spending due to our military activities. But, it cannot happen immediately. President Bush was faced with two big problems after 9/11: (1) a recession + corporate scandals + the 9/11 attacks put the economy in a very bad state; and (2) the realization that radical Islam is going to keep attacking us if we don't do anything to stop them. His solution was to accept a short term deficit for increased security after 9/11. This is analogous to paying for a big car repair bill with a credit card. If you want your car to run, you have to spend the money to get it fixed, and pay it off over time. Same with our security problem after 9/11. If we want security, we have to take care of the Islamic radical terrorists, so we introduced them to a few 500 lb bombs. We took out the Taliban and Saddam using our military, and that cost a lot, no doubt about it. So did steps taken to increase security in big cities like NYC and LA. Those activities are largely responsible for the deficit today. Some would disagree, but I think it was money well spent. The costs of securing my family and our country are worth it. The results are no new attacks since 9/11. Now, what about the simultaneous tax cuts? Well, you first must accept the irrefutable fact that tax cuts result in increased revenue to the federal government. Those increased receipts over time are used to pay for our war on terrorism and reduce the short term deficit caused by the immediate expenditures following 9/11. Quite simple, really.

So what is the alternative? What would you prefer? Higher taxes? That slows the economy. Just look at Germany and France. The fact you are omitting is that reducing taxes INCREASES money coming into the federal treasury. It's not a zero-sum game e.g., if you cut taxes, there is less money for the government to spend. Quite the opposite. Due to tax cuts, more money is available to regular people and investors, and they use it in taxable transactions, which adds up to the government taking in more than it would have lost in income tax reductions. These increased receipts allows the government to pay down the debt faster (as it is doing now), plus have money to go to social programs (which grow every year, btw). As a group, autoworkers may not be doing so well, and that is sad, but the economy as a whole is doing fine. This is a whole separate topic which is itself an interesting debate. The basic question is: What is the proper role of the courts in our system of government? I say the courts are to interpret the laws written by Congress, and not imply certain rights or priviledges. And that includes the Constitution. Foreign laws were passed by foreigners, and in my view should play no role in construing what OUR legislature meant when it passed laws. If the people believe that a foreign law would be good for us to follow, it should be debated and implemented through the legislature, not the courts. Part of the reason that court battles have become so political these days is because the courts are essentially legislating policy. That's not their role -- if policy is to be changed, let the legislature do it. BTW, I'm not opposed to the changes in policy, but rather the PROCESS by which it is done. Actually, the Iraqis want us to stay: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....=rss&rpc=22

By "us" do you mean autoworkers only, or everybody? I'll assume you mean everybody, including autoworkers: 1. Tax cuts got the economy going after 9/11, the dot-com bust, and the Enron mess. Unemployment was just reported to be 4.4%, which is the lowest in history I believe. Home ownership is at record levels. The deficit as a percentage of GDP is lower than it was when Bush took office. Fuel prices are coming down (and SUV sales are picking up!) I don't get how people continue to think this is a bad economy. By any measure, it isn't. 2. He appointed John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Those new justices will interpret the laws as written, and not legislate from the bench or consult "foreign law" like Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg (a former ACLU lawyer and Clinton appointee) does. 3. Bush finally went on the offense in dealing with terrorism, hunting them down and eliminating them. No attacks on the US since 9/11.

The UAW is really just a special interest group. Nothing wrong with that, of course. There are special interest groups on many fronts. However, they vote Democrat because the Dems give the UAW goodies and the Republicans do not. I'm sure that if the Dems stopped giving goodies and the Republicans started, the UAW would endorse a Republican. The Republicans do not vote "against" labor. They vote FOR having a level playing field and letting companies rise or fall on their own merits. In other words, the Republicans are for a free market system, but the Democrats want to skew the playing field or giving special goodies to members just to pander for a few UAW votes. Democrats do what the UAW want, but Republicans do what is right for the country.

Here's what I'll say, spermburper: You're no American. You hate America -- that's why you moved to Canada. I know its hard to make coherent sentences when you're choking on all the cum you've swallowed. Poop-chute-loving Canuck.