Mullaly: Gas Tax Worth Exploring

[ANTAUS]

LINK-Detroit News

[Meelaan]

I hate to say it, but he's right. The only thing Americans (i.e. "the general consumer whore nation") understands is their wallet. Thing is, both of these things would have to happen:

1. Gas would have to be over $5.00/gallon. Perhaps around $7.00.

2. The huge commuting public--of which I'm a member of--would have to relocate closer to their employer's location.

 

I would foresee this increase in fuel costs only being enacted on the driving public as raising costs for fuel on airline, trucking, and government entities would crash infrastructures around the country.

 

Perhaps a sort of "visa" would be granted to those who must commute a particular minimum distance each day and cannot afford to relocate? I would fit that bill, as I commute 105 miles round trip every day to New Orleans where residential property costs are either jacked up to all hell or not even available.

 

If the price of gasoline was increased $0.50 per gallon, I could live with it. I wouldn't like it, but it wouldn't prevent me from continuing my routine. An increase of $3.00/gallon would definitely have an effect on me though... and I think that would go for all the driving public, thereby getting the government's--and Mullaly's--desired effect.

[wescoent]

I hate to say it, but he's right. The only thing Americans (i.e. "the general consumer whore nation") understands is their wallet. Thing is, both of these things would have to happen:

1. Gas would have to be over $5.00/gallon. Perhaps around $7.00.

2. The huge commuting public--of which I'm a member of--would have to relocate closer to their employer's location.

 

I would foresee this increase in fuel costs only being enacted on the driving public as raising costs for fuel on airline, trucking, and government entities would crash infrastructures around the country.

 

Perhaps a sort of "visa" would be granted to those who must commute a particular minimum distance each day and cannot afford to relocate? I would fit that bill, as I commute 105 miles round trip every day to New Orleans where residential property costs are either jacked up to all hell or not even available.

 

If the price of gasoline was increased $0.50 per gallon, I could live with it. I wouldn't like it, but it wouldn't prevent me from continuing my routine. An increase of $3.00/gallon would definitely have an effect on me though... and I think that would go for all the driving public, thereby getting the government's--and Mullaly's--desired effect.

 

I wouldn't even blink at a $0.50 per gallon tax hike. All it's going to do is hurt the poor and middle class.

 

I prefer my personal plan a lot better:

 

The US government should introduce a new incentive program, and junk CAFE. For every average mpg above 20 that a new car gets, the consumer gets a $300 refund from the government upon purchase. So, if I buy a Fusion that gets 22mpg average, the government sends me a check for $600 towards the purchase. However, if I get a Focus that gets 30mpg, I get a $3,000 discount towards the purchase. Above 35mpg, the incentive increases to $400 per mpg above 20.

 

Every 5 years, the minimum MPG increases by 3. So, we have demand-driven consumer change, rather than the stupidity of CAFE. Manufacturers can afford to make their fuel-efficient cars very nice, since consumers are getting huge discounts anyway. People will naturally gravitate towards more fuel-efficient cars if they can, but we aren't hurting people who NEED guzzlers.

 

Did I mention this incentive is only available to auto companies incorporated in the United States?

 

If Congress were serious about this, they would pay for it by cutting back on all earmarked projects by 5%, which would EASILY cover the cost.

 

I see no downside to this, except that it just makes too much sense for anyone in Congress to implement.

[focus05]

A gas tax is the MOST effective way to curb fuel usage while not putting Ford out of business.

 

The problem with CAFE is that it is a weighted average of the fleet, and since Ford sells more trucks than everyone else, that brings down their average naturally. The market demands those trucks, so buyer would shift to other companies that can absorb some of the reduced production from Ford/GM, but ultimately, there would be drastically fewer trucks, their prices would go up and the construction and sevice industries would be hit really hard. Eventually, people would shift away some more, prices would drop, but production couldn't increase and less and less investment will be put into trucks (our biggest polluters, mind you). Eventually, there will be one or two niche players, but that would be it and companies that provide services requiring heavy-duty equipment would have to make significant operational changes (some of them good, some of them terribly inefficient) to accomodate a smaller vehicle availability.

 

Government mandates almost always create large dead-weight losses unless there is an over-riding social demand driving the mandate (then there are only small dead-weight losses often created by players who weren't efficient anyway). If you hike the gas tax as opposed to targeting CAFE, consumers will NATURALLY tend towards smaller vehicles and the capacity/size/efficiency that they need. The proceeds from such a tax would go towards funding public transit, infrastructure improvements and possibly spurring additional eco-research.

 

I believe there should be an allowance for lower-income residents who are working (not unemployed) and possibly small deductions for kids (to encourage activities and education, which might require you driving). Cities might also be able to share in the proceeds and give businesses some money to attract workers from the suburbs who may not otherwise be able to move because of cost of housing or safety/crime issues. The key is also not to shock the system. So, you phase it in over 10-15 years. People will efficiently allocate themselves. That will also give people plenty of time to decide if where they are living is good and if the car they are driving is sufficiently efficient and be able to change before the full force takes effect. Automakers will also have a better grip on where gas prices are heading and will adjust their dev dollars appropriately.

 

Good statements from Mulally. I'm glad we got him.

[ANTAUS]

If we place a gas tax, lets not forgot the majority of our goods WE purchase, arrive in trucks. Which means, all consumer goods will go up, including food. I would suggest people re-think that issue, or tweak it.

[NickF1011]

I hate to say it, but he's right. The only thing Americans (i.e. "the general consumer whore nation") understands is their wallet. Thing is, both of these things would have to happen:

1. Gas would have to be over $5.00/gallon. Perhaps around $7.00.

2. The huge commuting public--of which I'm a member of--would have to relocate closer to their employer's location.

 

I would foresee this increase in fuel costs only being enacted on the driving public as raising costs for fuel on airline, trucking, and government entities would crash infrastructures around the country.

 

Perhaps a sort of "visa" would be granted to those who must commute a particular minimum distance each day and cannot afford to relocate? I would fit that bill, as I commute 105 miles round trip every day to New Orleans where residential property costs are either jacked up to all hell or not even available.

 

If the price of gasoline was increased $0.50 per gallon, I could live with it. I wouldn't like it, but it wouldn't prevent me from continuing my routine. An increase of $3.00/gallon would definitely have an effect on me though... and I think that would go for all the driving public, thereby getting the government's--and Mullaly's--desired effect.

 

I could AFFORD to relocate, but why the hell would I want to? I'm not going to move into shithole Baltimore city just for the sake of having an easy commute.

 

Taxes never solved anything. They won't solve fuel consumption woes either.

[ANTAUS]

It's interesting how Mullaly states to tax, gas, instead of taxing the classification of vehicle which would obviously affect Ford. Really, it's the people buying the Expy's and F-150's to get groceries that probably have killed it for the majority who really need such vehicles to tow/haul, work in. It's quite self-serving for him not to suggest this alternative route.

 

So instead of taxing the gas that EVERYONE must use, and EVERYONE is affected by it...tax according to classification of vehicles. You want a Taurus, levy a few hundred dollars on that vehicle. You want an Expy, add a few more hundreds to that classification. If people REALLY want to play, then they can afford to pay.

 

And most importantly...If they gotta ask for the price, then they can't afford it...

[coupe3w]

I could AFFORD to relocate, but why the hell would I want to? I'm not going to move into shithole Baltimore city just for the sake of having an easy commute.

 

Taxes never solved anything. They won't solve fuel consumption woes either.

Amen to that!! What would the extra $.50 do? That money would just line politicians and lobbyist pockets.

We need alternative energy NOW! Politicians have been talking about this for as long as I can remember, but nothing ever gets done. All they do is talk, talk, talk and promise, promise, promise. And here we are talking about it again.

[BlackHorse]

I agree that CAFE is a failed policy although in truth if it hadn't been enacted the auto industry might probably still have us driving around with cars that use 4 barrel carbs. lol But this notion that giving the government more taxes on gasoline is somehow going to correct the damage that CAFE has done is just stupid. The Government already collects an average of 40 cents per every gallon of gas sold, so giving them another 50 cents is going to do what exactly? Wescoent is right, this will do nothing but hurt the poor and middle class wage earners in this country and won't solve any problems. It will have the effect of getting a lot of consumers to purchase ever smaller cars and if it comes to that guess who's going to lose out big time? That's right, the domestic automakers because in the compact car market the imports rule the roost. Frankly I have to say that if gas goes up 50 cents a gallon because the CEO at Ford encouraged additional tax I'll never buy a Ford product again.

Edited August 8, 2007 by BlackHorse

[jasonj80]

Amen to that!! What would the extra $.50 do? That money would just line politicians and lobbyist pockets.

We need alternative energy NOW! Politicians have been talking about this for as long as I can remember, but nothing ever gets done. All they do is talk, talk, talk and promise, promise, promise. And here we are talking about it again.

 

 

Maybe stop bridges from collapsing, if you look around this country is crumbling. Look at the % of taxes paid 10years ago and look today. The gas tax is the same when gas was 89cents a gallon as what it is when its 3.00/gallon. We need a gas tax and I'm all for the .50, people can bitch and bitch about how wasteful spending is but when they get a pork project in their neighborhood they love it and most never realize that it was a pork project. People call new and needed freeways, bridges, paving projects, and walk paths pork projects. It is pork when it is in another state, when it is in your state it is needed because you deal with it everyday.

 

Alternative Energy can be expensive -- or causes other damage. Build a Dam and kill fish as you prevent spawning, Build Windmills kill migrating or endangered birds. Bottled water uses petroleum to make the bottles yet most don't realize the environmental impact of that just the landfill impact. It goes on and on.

[Rob052067]

If we place a gas tax, lets not forgot the majority of our goods WE purchase, arrive in trucks. Which means, all consumer goods will go up, including food. I would suggest people re-think that issue, or tweak it.

Gas taxes and Diesel Fuel taxes are different and don't have to be at the same rate. Since Diesel powered vehicles get better mileage and their production is being encouraged, I doubt that the tax on Diesel, or on E85 for that matter, would be as high as on gasoline (nor should it be).

 

I fully agree that the US needs much higher gas taxes to encourage higher demand for more fuel efficient and alternative fuel powered vehicles and to lower demand for foriegn oil. I've long advocated a phased-in increase in gas taxes by an additional $2/gallon over 5 years or even $4/gallon over 10 years (that's only a 10-cent increase every 3 months for 5-10 years). The additional revenue can be used to repair and improve the country's infrastructure and to pay for research and development of new technologies. And, to ease the burden but still gain the benefits of lower gasoline demand, some of the increase can be be offset for low and middle income people by offering modest income tax credits.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Rob052067

[NickF1011]

Maybe stop bridges from collapsing, if you look around this country is crumbling. Look at the % of taxes paid 10years ago and look today. The gas tax is the same when gas was 89cents a gallon as what it is when its 3.00/gallon. We need a gas tax and I'm all for the .50, people can bitch and bitch about how wasteful spending is but when they get a pork project in their neighborhood they love it and most never realize that it was a pork project. People call new and needed freeways, bridges, paving projects, and walk paths pork projects. It is pork when it is in another state, when it is in your state it is needed because you deal with it everyday.

 

Alternative Energy can be expensive -- or causes other damage. Build a Dam and kill fish as you prevent spawning, Build Windmills kill migrating or endangered birds. Bottled water uses petroleum to make the bottles yet most don't realize the environmental impact of that just the landfill impact. It goes on and on.

 

Would you mind sending me 50 cents for every gallon of gasoline I use too? I sure as hell don't want to pay it.

[BlackHorse]

Maybe stop bridges from collapsing, if you look around this country is crumbling. Look at the % of taxes paid 10years ago and look today. The gas tax is the same when gas was 89cents a gallon as what it is when its 3.00/gallon. We need a gas tax and I'm all for the .50, people can bitch and bitch about how wasteful spending is but when they get a pork project in their neighborhood they love it and most never realize that it was a pork project. People call new and needed freeways, bridges, paving projects, and walk paths pork projects. It is pork when it is in another state, when it is in your state it is needed because you deal with it everyday.

 

Alternative Energy can be expensive -- or causes other damage. Build a Dam and kill fish as you prevent spawning, Build Windmills kill migrating or endangered birds. Bottled water uses petroleum to make the bottles yet most don't realize the environmental impact of that just the landfill impact. It goes on and on.

 

I'm sorry jasonj80 but you just flat out don't know what you're talking about. The problem is not that we need more taxes for infrastructure. The problem is that our government wastefully and foolishly spends the literally billions of dollars in tax revenue they already have. As you so cleverly pointed out, 15 billion dollars in pork projects last year alone is a heck of a lot of infrastructure that could be updated. The truth is they have been negligent in not funding our infrastructure because so long as bridges were not falling and the roads were mostly serviceable nobody is complaining and it's easy to redirect that funding into some other project. Giving them more taxes is not going to change that, it's only going to give them billions more for more wasteful spending.

[NickF1011]

I'd possibly MAYBE support the hike if the federal government mandated that every cent it collected would be used for repurchasing of treasury bonds from the Chinese.

[Sizzler]

...Perhaps a sort of "visa" would be granted to those who must commute a particular minimum distance each day and cannot afford to relocate? I would fit that bill, as I commute 105 miles round trip every day to New Orleans where residential property costs are either jacked up to all hell or not even available.

 

 

hate to tell you this, but you must have an exhaust leak into your passenger compartment.

 

residential property costs JACKED UP, or NOT even available??? In New Orleans??

[TomServo92]

hate to tell you this, but you must have an exhaust leak into your passenger compartment.

 

residential property costs JACKED UP, or NOT even available??? In New Orleans??

 

I'm sure it's because there isn't much left in habitable condition in New Orleans itself.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Meelaan, you can relocate to the south shore anytime you want. There are tons of houses for sale in Metairie and Kenner that are repaired and on the market. You live on the North Shore (or Slidell, or up near Baton rouge) for the sheer fact that you don't want to get flooded again. The houses that are for sale in the south shore are affordable as the post Katrina spike collapsed a few months back and prices are rapidly approaching pre katrina levels. Why is this happening? Many of the businesses that used to employ people that live out in jefferson parish have left, so the above median wage earners that live there have had to leave too.

 

Personally, I live in Kenner. I have my family close to me (we all live within a 20 block radius). While I could try to live in New Orleans proper, I left there out of fear for my life. Our house was broken into three times in one year. The last time, they did it in broad daylight, in the middle of the week, cutting through a 6 foot chain link fence topped with barbed wire, broke down the side door, maced our german shephard, backed up a heavy truck of some sorts (at least that's what the tire tracks looked like) and emptied the house of EVERYTHING that was smaller than a refrigerator and wasn't nailed to the wall. We were the last white family in a three block radius of wholely african-american families that had moved in during the 15 years or so my family lived there. No one, of course, saw a thing. Not the ladies across the street that sit outside all day, every day. Not the retired couple that lived next door to us. No one.

 

So, my life is worth more to me than living in New Orleans, not to mention the craziness going on with the Tax Acessors. My main repurcussions from staying down here are the rise in Homeowners insurance rates (after adjusting deductibles to the max allowed by my mortgage and trimming coverages to the minimum that we can handle, I'm down to $2200 a year) and a somewhat more expensive electricity bill (after all the energy saving things I did to my house in the refurbishment). However, my daily commute is about 18 miles one way, and that's about 40-50 minutes of traffic. ITs getting better every month as more and more businesses fail or leave, the reconstruction effort bogs down and the traffic falls off.

 

As for a gas tax, its going to kill the lower and middle class that work for crap wages and have to live out in the burbs for even half a chance of decent schools and safety. The rich get to live in their gated condos downtown. The ultra poor live in the traditional slums. If taxes skyrocketed, then the few habitable places in the inner cities would suddenly have a house value skyrocket to the point that only the rich could afford it. The middle and poor would still have to live out in the burbs. As cars got paid off, they'd find something that burned less gas to use as a commuter. In the end, though, the amount of mileage saved from the average commute wouldn't shrink much. Urban sprawl exists because one of the key factors of the flight to the burbs was crime. As they fled, the crime in the inner city stayed at the same level it always had, the crime in the burbs went up a little, but, per-capita, it is still much much lower than inner city crime.

 

If you want to reduce this country's consumption of gasoline due to commuting, deal with the important issue, make the inner city liveable. Clean up the crime, enforce local building codes and ordinances. Make it SAFE to live in the city. Trust me, no one wants to waste two hours of their life each day in traffic. We don't do this by choice. We do this because we have to for our families. Once the inner city becomes liveable. Once it becomes safe to walk or ride your bike places, then we'll come back to the city to live.

[BlackHorse]

I fully agree that the US needs much higher gas taxes to encourage higher demand for more fuel efficient and alternative fuel powered vehicles and to lower demand for foriegn oil. I've long advocated a phased-in increase in gas taxes by an additional $2/gallon over 5 years or even $4/gallon over 10 years (that's only a 10-cent increase every 3 months for 5-10 years). The additional revenue can be used to repair and improve the country's infrastructure and to pay for research and development of new technologies. And, to ease the burden but still gain the benefits of lower gasoline demand, some of the increase can be be offset for low and middle income people by offering modest income tax credits.

 

Listen to what you're saying fool. The average American already gives roughly 50% of his or her income to the government in one form or another and you are calling for more? It's already far too high.

[jpd80]

Wouldn't CAFE be better served setting fuel economy targets for individual vehicle groups instead of fleet averages?

Until CAFE stops manufacturers offsetting bad fuel economy of gas guzzlers against smaller cars, no real change is possible.

For example, city/highway mileage of main selling vehicles - Trucks/SUVs/Large Cars, the ones contributing to most fuel

usage could be directly increased in proportion while smaller cars have smaller concessional increases.

That way, all vehicles become more fuel effficient.

 

In short, target the problem vehicles and force them to be more efficient.

That way, you achieve real fuel efficiency gains instead of avoiding the problem

by hiding behind mass production of Fiestas/Focus/Fusion hybrids.

 

All of this is achieved without a Gas Tax.

[SVT_MAN]

Wouldn't CAFE be better served setting fuel economy targets for individual vehicle groups instead of fleet averages?

 

Yes, they would. The problem? CAFE doesn't get to keep its cool acronym if we aren't dealing with an average.

Edited August 8, 2007 by SVT_MAN

[BlackHorse]

Well put jpd80. Look does anyone think that people buy SUV's because they just like paying for those 14 and 15 mpg gas bills? Get real of course not. So it seems to me that instead of Mulehead trying to get the government to take more of my money his dumb ass should be working hard to develop large vehicles that also get good mileage by means of alternative ways of doing things. Diesel comes to mind. Perhaps a diesel hybrid or really making an effort to develop electric vehicles instead of just paying it lip service. More tax, what a moron.

[Rob052067]

It's interesting how Mullaly states to tax gas, instead of taxing the classification of vehicle which would obviously affect Ford. Really, it's the people buying the Expy's and F-150's to get groceries that probably have killed it for the majority who really need such vehicles to tow/haul, work in. It's quite self-serving for him not to suggest this alternative route.

 

No arguments here that Mulally is going to be proponent of policies that benefit Ford, or at least have the least negative impact on the company. And, as the CEO, there's nothing wrong with that.

 

However, taxing different classes of vehicles at different rates is a bad idea, and really does nothing to encourage higher efficiency and lower fuel demand. People that need bigger vehicles for whatever reason are still going to buy them, regardless. Plus, just because someone drives a big gas guzzling vehicle doesn't necessarly mean they use more gas than someone else who drives a tiny gas sipper. For example, I live 4 miles from work and drive a Yukon that gets 16mpg around town, but I'm using far less gas than the Prius driver who lives 30 miles from work and gets 45mpg. How a person drives also affects how much gas they use. A lead-foot driver in a mid size car may get the same mileage as a light-foot foot in a full size truck.

 

A higher tax on gas is the most fair and equitable solution. The more you use the more you pay - regardless of what you drive.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Rob052067

[jpd80]

Yeah, I'm thinking along the lines of if 150,000 Trucks/SUVs/CUVs and 60,000 Cars get sold each month,

why not aim at helping those drivers achieve more fuel economy?

The logic that just increasing fuel economy enables people to drive their vehicles further

doesn't really stack up, most people are creatures of habit and would rather pocket

fuel savings than drive any further than needed.

[Rob052067]

I'm sorry jasonj80 but you just flat out don't know what you're talking about. The problem is not that we need more taxes for infrastructure. The problem is that our government wastefully and foolishly spends the literally billions of dollars in tax revenue they already have. As you so cleverly pointed out, 15 billion dollars in pork projects last year alone is a heck of a lot of infrastructure that could be updated. The truth is they have been negligent in not funding our infrastructure because so long as bridges were not falling and the roads were mostly serviceable nobody is complaining and it's easy to redirect that funding into some other project. Giving them more taxes is not going to change that, it's only going to give them billions more for more wasteful spending.

 

I couldn't disagree more. The so-called 'wasteful pork barrel' spending by Congress is really such a miniscule blip on the radar of the Budget of the U.S. that it could be likened to a rounding error. First, most of those 'pork' projects are useful and necessary, and bringing money back to their home states and districts is part of what Congressmen are elected to do (and, sadly, some of that pork is often needed to gain votes on crucial bills - that's just politics). Second, the actual amount of wasted money on unnecessary projects is in the blown out of proportion by the media and amounts to a couple of billion dollars a year at the most.

 

Repairing America's aging infrastructure will cost over a Trillion dollars over 10 years (ie: over $1,000 Billion!), and there's no way to pay for it without raising revenues (taxes). There's only a very small percentage of the US Budget that doesn't go toward Defense, Social Security, Medicare, and Interest Payments.

 

The Federal Debt is nearly $9 Trillion dollars, and we sure don't need to pile on more debt to pay for infrastructure repairs. In Fiscal Year 2006 alone, the U. S. Government spent $406 Billion on Interest Payments on the National Debt. Compare that to spending for NASA at $15 Billion, Education at $61 Billion, and Department of Transportation at $56 Billion. Just think what that $406 billion dollars could have been better spent on had Congress not mortgaged the future with annual deficit spending.

 

For decades, Republicans have pushed tax cuts on top of tax cuts while wrongly claiming that economic growth will increase revenues and eliminate deficits. That hasn't happened. There's been revenue increases, but that's to be expected with population increases. Unfortunately, spending has also increased as the demands on Defense, Social Security, and Medicare increased, and the ever growing national debt required larger and larger interest payments. Basically, the Republicans have been 'Borrow and Spenders'.

 

At the same time, Democrats have been shamed and belittled as 'Tax and Spenders' for so long that they've been wary to push for needed tax increases to eliminate deficits, to pay down the debt, and to pay for much needed infrastructure repairs and improvements.

 

There's been no real leadership in government on either side to get the job done for the good of the country in the long run. Everything is done for the here and now: to please supporters, so more campaign funds can be raised, so they can get re-elected... wash, rinse, repeat, ad-infinitum...

 

:titanic:

Edited August 8, 2007 by Rob052067

[BlackHorse]

I couldn't disagree more. The so-called 'wasteful pork barrel' spending by Congress is really such a miniscule blip on the radar of the Budget of the U.S. that it could be likened to a rounding error. First, most of those 'pork' projects are useful and necessary and bringing money back to their home states and districts is part of what Congressmen are elected to do (and, sadly, some of that pork is often needed to gain votes on crucial bills - that's just politics). Second, the actual amount of wasted money on unnecessary projects is in the blown out of proportion by the media and amounts to a couple of billion dollars a year at the most.

 

Repairing America's aging infrastructure will cost over a trillion dollars over 10 years (ie: over 1,000 Billion), and there's no way to pay for it without raising revenues (taxes). There's only a very small percentage of the US Budget that doesn't go toward Defense, Social Security, Medicare, and Interest Payments.

 

The Federal Debt is nearly $9 Trillion dollars, and we sure don't need to pile on more debt to pay for infrastructure repairs. In Fiscal Year 2006 alone, the U. S. Government spent $406 Billion on Interest Payments on the National Debt. Compare that to spending for NASA at $15 Billion, Education at $61 Billion, and Department of Transportation at $56 Billion. Just think what that $406 billion dollars could have been better spent on had Congress not mortgaged the future with annual deficit spending.

 

For decades, Republicans have pushed tax cuts on top of tax cuts while wrongly claiming that economic growth will increase revenues and eliminate deficits. That hasn't happened. There's been revenue increases, but that's to be expected with population increases. Unfortunately, spending has also increased as the demands on Defense, Social Security, and Medicare increased, and the ever growing national debt required larger and larger interest payments. Basically, the Republicans have been 'Borrow and Spenders'.

 

At the same time, Democrats have been shamed and belittled as 'Tax and Spenders' for so long that they've been wary to push for needed tax increases to eliminate deficits, to pay down the debt, and to pay for much needed infrastructure repairs and improvements.

 

There's been no real leadership in government on either side to get the job done for the good of the country in the long run. Everything is done for the here and now: to please supporters, so more campaign funds can be raised, so they can get re-elected... wash, rinse, repeat, ad-infinity.

 

:titanic:

 

If it's going to sink then let it sink and lets start over from scratch. But I'll be damned if I'll agree that paying more and more taxes is the answer because I know that's a damn lie. Half of the wealth of this nation ends up in the hands of the government and you're going to seriously try and tell me that's not enough to keep things going? My ass. Ronald Reagan once said "It's not that Americans pay too little, it's that government spends too much." and he was right regardless of your aversion to republicans. I refuse to believe that that the hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars the government takes every year is not enough. If it seriously isn't enough then it's time to abandon this little experiment and start over, consequences be damned. I won't be a slave.