RE: How should the USA Fund its highway system?

RE: How should the USA Fund its highway system? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MercTech -> RE: How should the USA Fund its highway system? (7/28/2014 3:15:29 AM)
Ok, U.S. road repair funding actually varies from state to state as to ways and means. But, the Federal contribution to road maintenance is made via matching funds via the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). And, historically, federal highway funds have been withheld for political reasons on the part of the executive. (Forced states to legislate minimum drinking age to 21 up from 18. Forced states to lower maximum highway speeds to 55 mph on roads that were designed for sustained speeds of 95 mph. The person who did that also wanted to legislate mandatory seat belts and airbags on motorcycles but failed on that agenda item.) Most states seem to fund highway repairs and construction by vehicle license fees. A portion of taxes collected in a municipality or county belong to the county. The state portion of the taxes is used as matching funds for repairs on state and federal roadways. The bottom line: repairs to a federal roadway such as an interstate highway have construction and repair funded by a mix of local, state, and federal monies. The actual contracting of repairs and construction is done locally. (graft and kickbacks, anyone?) Motor fuel taxes usually just go straight into the general fund. I think Bush Senior (mister "read my lips, no new taxes") really crippled his election chances when he supported doubling the federal gasoline tax in the early 90s. People seem to see the rate as low in modern inflated dollars but back then it made taxes almost 50% of the cost of a gallon of fuel. The largest problem with increasing the price of fuel is that it is an inflation trigger on the whole economy. Whenever it costs more to bring your groceries to the market, you will personally take a hit in the pocket book for everything you buy.

thompsonx -> RE: How should the USA Fund its highway system? (7/31/2014 4:47:45 PM)
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri To sum up your rambling... no answer. Another non answer. I don't think you have a clue what a conservative or a libertarian thinks, so I'm not going to address that statement. It appears that you have a lot of trouble backing up your ignorant opinions. as we continue to improve fuel efficiency, we'll continue to reduce the rate at which money goes into the highway funds. Perhaps if vehcles were taxed on how much wear they cause to the roadway. Should I have to pay more taxes for uses that don't have anything to do with the roads (lawn mower, snow thrower, etc.)? Off hgwy fuel use is not subject to road tax. A State should be able to pass the laws it deems proper. Like bringing back slavery or taking the vote away from women? [8\|] The Federal Government doesn't really have authority outside of Federal roadways for passing laws. Yeah right[8\|] If Doc Brown ever brings back the vehicles that don't need roads, we can keep the gas tax being the funding source, as those vehicles won't be damaging the roads like those that require gasoline. How exactly does a gasoline fuel vehicle damage the roadway?

thompsonx -> RE: How should the USA Fund its highway system? (7/31/2014 4:49:00 PM)
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Personally, I have no problem with increased taxes, provided the current tax revenues aren't being wasted too much (per my perception). And your perception is a secret[8\|]we are all so surprised

thompsonx -> RE: How should the USA Fund its highway system? (7/31/2014 4:50:11 PM)
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery [image]http://ftop.ru/large/201212/43274.jpg[/image] Is that a bushless car wash?

DomKen -> RE: How should the USA Fund its highway system? (7/31/2014 5:05:29 PM)
Well I guess we're just going to have to do without now.

thompsonx -> RE: How should the USA Fund its highway system? (7/31/2014 5:19:20 PM)
ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie It's lost far more than 39%. It's lost ANOTHER 50% due to efficiencies in vehicles and loss of distance driven. 20 years ago the average mileage driven was 16,000 miles. 10 years ago, 12,000. Today, the average driver (thanks to Amazon, among others) drives 9,000 miles a year (nearly 1/2 what it was 20 years previous). Driving milage is down but your numbers are less than accurate. mileage peaked in june 2005. Usage today is equal to 1994. http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/DOT-Miles-Driven.php Why is that? Because, among other things, we pay laborers 46 bucks an hour to broom loose gravel. When a slave could do it for quite a bit less That's because of a law called "Davis Bacon" instituted in the 30's. Intended to insure that "fair wages" were paid to all employees (during the Depression), in an attempt to create "cash flow" (buyers/people with money to buy "stuff"). Today, it no longer insures a "fair wage", You claim it worked during the depression but you fail to tell us how it is not working now except you cant fuck your employees like you seem to want to. And so....we're paying twice, in some cases, 3 x's what competitive wages and costs would be if....there were no collars on wages. Why is it that in your zip code skilled labor is only worth $15 an hour. That is what a baby sitter gets.[8\|] Which, with accounting allowances and other add ins causes a paving job to cost approx. 3 and 4 X's what it would cost if competition was the predominant factor in bids. It is pretty plane to us that you would make a lot more money in your business if you could slave labor. Add in collusion and....you have a mile of roadway costing about 4+ X's what it would cost if the feds didn't enforce costs. It was the feds that freed the slaves so I can see why you are whining. Don't believe me? (I own a paving company). We believe you would like to have labor you don't have to pay then you make more money. Guess what? You're being robbed, all in the name of equality. So if you could get slave labor you would lower your prices so that you would make no more money than you do now just so that your fellow americans could share in they wealth you stole from your employees? That is not a logical conclusion. If you would steal from your employees why would you share that with anyone? "Equality" in unions means "Fuck you" Actually a union means you cant fuck them.

thompsonx -> RE: How should the USA Fund its highway system? (7/31/2014 5:36:38 PM)
ORIGINAL: Gauge A flat income tax is fair, isn't it? Fair to whom? If every one makes the same then it would be fair. If I make a million and after say a 10% flat tax I have $900,000 left to spend on on good hooch and women with trashy underware and you make $16,000 you have only $14,400 to pay the rent and buy groceries. We pay a percentage, each according to income, it distributes the burden equally, no? No.It puts no burden on the rich and a serious burden on the not rich.

thompsonx -> RE: How should the USA Fund its highway system? (7/31/2014 5:38:12 PM)
ORIGINAL: blacksword404 The thing needs to be properly overseen. No more using highway money to plant flowers along the highway. It looks pretty and all but it cost money that needs to go towards roads. Perhaps you might want to acquaint yourself with the purpose of highway landscaping before you get both feet in your mouth.

thompsonx -> RE: How should the USA Fund its highway system? (7/31/2014 5:41:30 PM)
ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted I saw an example of this recently, although it was with a rental property not a road. My Grandmother was renting a house from NY. Someone showed up one day and asked if there was anything she needed fixed. She mentioned one or two things, he went through and came up with a huge list of improvements. They ripped out her basement steps and replaced them with steel ones. They replaced her furnace and oil-tank. They replaced most of the plumbing and the roof. It cost thousands, and his explanation was that the department had money they needed to use so they didn't lose it in next years budget. The worst part, when she died a year or so later, they boarded the place up and it's been vacant ever since. If it is a rented house and it is now boarded up what has that to do with the discussion. It is private property that had some improvements done to it at state expense. Your grandmother got to spend a year in an upgraded house. So unless you have some sort of issues with your granny I cannot see your issue.

thompsonx -> RE: How should the USA Fund its highway system? (7/31/2014 5:43:08 PM)
ORIGINAL: mnottertail Well, then you would face the same declining revenue, since I ain't getting them anywhere near what I am talking about them. Not much revenue to be raised in that area. This may boarder on heresy but have you considered the possibility that your prices may have some effect on your volume?

thompsonx -> RE: How should the USA Fund its highway system? (7/31/2014 5:44:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kinksterparty Well, if people stop freaking out over nuclear - which, with only 2 serious accidents during the millions of runtime-hours accumulated by 1000's of reactors, has a miniscule impact on health & environment, compared to the less news-worthy but far more damaging ongoing pollution from coal and oil - maybe, just maybe, we could have a viable energy solution. The worst disaster, Chernobyl (Pripyat, actually), was caused by a military reactor that was originally built to breed weapons-grade uranium. It was NEVER designed to be a power-generating solution, and was only put into place because the USSR wanted to show off how technologically advanced they were. There are no active commercial reactors of that type anywhere in the world, so a "Pripyat repeat" is not possible. With the exception of major structural damage (like Fukushima), modern reactors would "spin down" and shut off, rather than "run away" like the Chernobyl one. Fukushima is a different story. Can't fault the reactor design, but ask yourself this: "who the HELL builds a nuclear power station in an area vulnerable not only to tectonic instability but also tsunamis?". If it was 30 miles further inland, the consequences wouldn't be anywhere near as severe as they are now. Still... TWO, coun'em, TWO, major failures. Compared to the millions of tons of CO2 and other pollutants emitted by the fossil-fuel power plants. Actually there have been more than two. Would it be kewel if we stash the spent fuel rods under your bed for the next million years or so?

thompsonx -> RE: How should the USA Fund its highway system? (7/31/2014 5:55:52 PM)
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I agree it's fair. Well of course you would you are a phoquing moron who is a pimp for korporate amerika. The argument, though, is that X% of $40k is much carries a greater impact than X% of $250k. That is, if you're only making $40k, you have less disposable income afterwards, compared to those who make more. How is this fair to the 40K per year person? They have less money for food clothing and shelter. I'm more into a consumption tax, with just a handful of exemptions (charities and foods only, for the most part). That way, the less money you have, the less money you're likely to spend, and the less taxes you pay. With food being exempt from taxation, that "necessity" won't have as great an impact on the budget of those who make less. Those who make a lot more, tend to spend a lot more, so they'll pay a lot more in taxes. You are so full of shit. Show us where this is true. Do the rich pay sales tax on stock purchases? Do the rich pay income tax or corporate tax. Show us validation for your mindnumbingly stupid opinion. And, yes, amicable disagreement would be a much better way to go about things. Except when confronted with facts that contradict your ignorant untuored opinions you refuse to define your terms. So no you have zero interest in discussion.

thompsonx -> RE: How should the USA Fund its highway system? (7/31/2014 5:56:57 PM)
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery None of our taxes are at the level paid in Europe. Not even close. Nor are our services.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: How should the USA Fund its highway system? (7/31/2014 5:57:20 PM)
By charging more. Gas usage has faltered. More cars. (It's fairly basic).

thompsonx -> RE: How should the USA Fund its highway system? (7/31/2014 5:58:38 PM)
ORIGINAL: Sanity Sounds like our VA What would you know about the va?

thompsonx -> RE: How should the USA Fund its highway system? (7/31/2014 6:02:42 PM)
ORIGINAL: Sanity Always demanding more Yeah that is just how those fucking disabled vets are. Would you have been happier if they had died from their wounds? The private sector can be far more efficient if government isn't too much in the way When has that been true? What oil company does not rx bennies from uncle sugar? What car company does not rx bennies from uncle sugar? What korporation does not rx bennies from uncle sugar?

thompsonx -> RE: How should the USA Fund its highway system? (7/31/2014 6:10:47 PM)
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You don't get to define what a fair wage is, though. That's the point. Those with the money get to have a say in it. Those who want the money get a say, too. If they can't come to an agreement, they don't enter into a contract. If the labor forms itself into a union then they tell punks like you to go fuck yourself. Make your own parts.

thompsonx -> RE: How should the USA Fund its highway system? (7/31/2014 6:17:03 PM)
ORIGINAL: Sanity And before you come back with the standard propaganda, no I did not write anything like there should be no laws or regulation What a lying rightwing asshole you are. You have told us often that there are useless govt reg. When asked which ones you were offended by we get nothing but silence. So if you wont tell us which regs you do not like we can only deduce that you dislike them all.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: How should the USA Fund its highway system? (7/31/2014 6:49:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: Sanity And before you come back with the standard propaganda, no I did not write anything like there should be no laws or regulation What a llying rightwing asshole you are. You have told us often that there are useless govt reg. When asked which ones you were offended by we get nothing but silence. So if you wont tell us which regs you do not like we can only deduce that you dislike them all. (More from Thompson V)

thompsonx -> RE: How should the USA Fund its highway system? (7/31/2014 6:55:16 PM)
ORIGINAL: MercTech And, historically, federal highway funds have been withheld for political reasons on the part of the executive. (Forced states to legislate minimum drinking age to 21 up from 18. That is not true. The penality was 10% of their federal highway funds for not making the drinking age 21. Forced states to lower maximum highway speeds to 55 mph on roads that were designed for sustained speeds of 95 mph. Where did you hear of highways designed for sustained speeds of 95 mph? This is the book from which freeway design is taken. It seems to feel that 70 mph is the design max and list pages of exceptions where the speed must be lower. The 55 mph speed limit was designed to lower fuel consumption. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. pp. 507 (design speed), ISBN 1-56051-156-7 The person who did that also wanted to legislate mandatory seat belts That sounds like an urban legend. You would not happen to have some validation for it would you? and airbags on motorcycles but failed on that agenda item. Honda has em on some of their bikes and then there is this. http://www.gizmag.com/safety-sphere-motorcycle-airbag/21354/ .

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625