MtnGoat
-
Posts
739 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by MtnGoat
-
-
"MtnGoat, you refuse to carry on any sort of converstaion based in reality."
I agree the reality of expecting you to choose to do what you say you support, without pointing at everyone around you and saying they have to do it too or you won't, is something that presents a difficulty. How your claim you value something you won't do by choice, represents you actually valuing it with your real and actual action, is a common problem with liberals of all stripes. Somehow your values only apply when everybody else does what you want.
-
"Why was the Supreme Court involved then?"
Because the Florida Supreme court did not follow their constitutional mandate to give a thumbs up or down on laws, not change or create them. Their option on election law is yes or no, valid or invalid... not deciding upon a standard and a timeframe. That's what the legislature does.
-
http://www.icta.org/projects/trans/rlprexsm.htm
They make a lot of good points. I have no problem with not subsidizing petroleum industry, where such elimination of subsidy is *not* effected by adding someone elses calculation of market costs in taxes.
External costs that reflect back by market processes such as insurance, both car and health, due to accidents and other things , will naturally accrue to the individuals involved. Anyplace a cost is directly market attributable to vehicle use, I have no problem with removing subsidies.
When you move into "social" costs, where this idea becomes more subjective and dependent on political philosophy/theology, the "costs" become a matter of views and not ones calculable by objective means, those have no place in the costing process IMO.
The short version: remove oil production subsidies, remove oil production penalties too (taxes), remove road building subsidies, formulate fuel taxes to reflect building the roads and remediation works, make sure car and health insurances also reflect actual, provable market costs, and then let the system, prices, and choices float where consumers direct it.
-
"Hey buddy, ever hear of the tragedy of the commons? Well there you have it. "
You are right. When people use resources they don't pay for, or can use resources someone *else* pays for, a huge mess ensues. That's why those who use need to be those who pay. Eliminating subsidies in resource extraction, usage, public usage of resources such as schools, so this actually occurs makes sure people's action don't occur in this vacuum.
"we do what's in our own immediate self-interest and lose out on the opportunity for common gain."
What about people who realize their self interest involves common gain and also that their self interest must involve their action in service of common gain? Don't you order your actions in such a way? I do. That we disagree on how common gain works, or what it means, doesn't mean no one pays attention to it.
"I don't personally give the government an extra $500 every year, because I know it won't do any good unless everyone else does it as well. "
You mean them having $500 bucks more isn't $500 bucks more to help someone with? If you don't want to send it to govt, why not send it to a charity where you *can* direct it where you want and you know it will be used for what you want?
"How the hell is that fiscally responsible? I call that fiscally fucked up."
I agree. The spending increases are not a good idea. Cut the taxes and limit spending.
-
-
"And what about those who drive on MY roads that I paid MORE for then THEM? THat's not fair now is it."
Aren't you one who has been telling us how bad it is to be selfish, and that you believe in sharing?
Don't you pay more than someone else with a different kind of car anyway, or less than someone else? The way to eliminate this issue IMO, and the proper thing anway, is to make car tabs a flat fee regardless of vehicle type or cost, that covers merely registration and tracking of all the kinds of cars out there and maybe policing the roads, and pay for roads themselves using a gas tax alone. This accounts for all combinations of driving more or less distance *and* having better or worse mileage, and institutes a true, scaled user fee for using the roadways.
-
"Hey, I'm simply point out that a place exactly like mtngoat want's already exists."
It does? Where? Your misunderstand of my position doesn't indicate you know what such a place is like. I've never ever made the claim govt isn't needed. That's merely your reaction to the idea that govt shouldn't be in a lot places it currently is. To liberals who vest so much in social control, the idea of less govt seems virtually inseparable from the idea of no govt.
-
"How many times do I have to point out we don't have a charity based government?"
How many times do I need to point out that this doesn't matter, that your support for you paying more doesn't have anything to do with wether it's charity based or not! You wish to pay more, do so.
"You may not want to admit it, but the government is there to collect taxes from *everybody*."
Sure it is. But that everybody includes, you, and since you think $1 more a gallon is a good idea, why not begin now? Imagine how cool you'll be leading the charge instead of waiting for someone else to take action.
-
"I chose to not pay for our military, you jackass. SHould I have that right too?"
Yup.
"Are you a hermit? Where did you come up with this whacky ass view of how government should work."
When did it become wacky to expect you to choose to pay for what you say you want to pay for in the first place?
-
"My main problem with conservatives is their total lack of compassion. "
If you measure "compassion" by your willingness to make someone else pay, that's your problem. I measure it by someone's willingness to support what they say they believe with their *own* actions and cash.
I care about much of the same stuff you do, probably. I just don't see how making bob next door serve my social views makes me any more "compassionate".
"It's always me me me."
Yeah, nothing me me me about deciding you know what everyone else should pay to drive a car, pay to fill it up, who they should hire, or fire, or eat, or teach, or buy, or sell, based on your views of their actions, nothing me me me about implementing your social agenda for your reasons. Nope, no "me" there at all. right!
"If I wasn't forced to I wouldn't, but that doesn't mean I'm against government spending. "
Of course you're not, you just need to be forced to pay for what you say you support. That's not what I call actual support, personally.
"I'm not going to send them extra unless I know everyone else is too."
So what you say you believe in and support somehow depends on what someone else does? That's a mighty odd view of morality and "support". You may not be able to control what someone else does, but you are fully in charge of you acting on your morals.
"Car Tabs tax reduction gave everyone with an RV and a fancy Lexus a huge break, but the poor guy with a crappy old beater got no break."
You mean the people who paid more got more of a reduction... Exactly! Why should someone who pays less get more back than someone who pays more?
And GW's tax breaks are all about padding the pocketbooks of the rich while making the middle class drop their pants and bend over.
-
"So following your logic, why don't you send a few bucks to gary locke every time you fill up your car and ask him to add that to the transportation fund?"
Because I think what I pay is already fine, if not too high. I'm not the one supporting people sending in more, you are.
"Your logic flawed, mtngoat."
Why would I want to send in more when I don't support taking more in the first place?
-
"I'd love to see a $1 a gallon gas tax to *really* get people in alternative energy vehicles. "
Then later "I would be MORE than happy to pay a big fat tax as well."
You can start right now without waiting for anybody but you to take action. Send in that extra buck a gallon on your own.
Since you're in favor of it, and realize you'll be paying it too, there's no reason you can't begin right away, along with everyone else who agrees. After all, it will change your driving habits too and there's no reason not to begin right away since you think it needs to be done.
-
"If SUVs were taxed more according to their above normal usage of fuel, road wear and danger to other vechiles,"
They are already taxed more on fuel, because they burn more. This necessarily plays into road maintainance, since road budgets partially drive fuel taxes (they should totally drive them). Insurance costs more also. I know because when I bought my 4Runner, the costs of insuring it instead of a Saturn jumped. The costs are already higher.
"thus making the cost of ownership more in line with the cost to society as a whole, would SUV owners object?"
"but it would hopefully discourage joe and jan suburbia from community around in a tank."
If joe and jan wish to "community around" in an SUV, that's up to them.
-
"I see so perhaps there are days when the freeways are backed up in Seattle where no one in an suv in that traffic jam is actually commuting?"
I am sure people are. But since you cannot know which is who, the infantile notion of picking out one innocent and deciding you know who they are and what they do and wether they "need" their rig is a joke.
Even further when you can't know what else they do with their rigs, beyond the seemingly innate need to decide no one "needs" them because some self satisfied econuts said so.
So now people need to buy two vehicles to satisfy folks like you they're going about their lives in the most efficient manner you deign they should live? Feel free to look out at lots of people you don't know and decide they're all not meeting your standards for what you'd drive in your estimation of their lives, it's par for the course.
-
"The point being HE WASN'T USING A SUBURBAN FOR WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED FOR. I can say that with relative confidence. "
And yet you will be wrong. The suburban is designed to be used on roads *and* off roads. A vehicle usable only in 3' of mud has no use for most people, so they make it usable in more than that situation, and then people buy it and use it in more than that situation.
I cannot afford to own two vehicles. I chose one that would allow me to do everything I want to do, even though most of the time I'm not using all it's capabilties. This is merely what happens when one wants to do all kinds of stuff but cannot buy a vehicle for each use.
"Give me one reasonable *and likely* explanation for driving by yourself in a suburban on the 520 bridge in rush hour wearing a suit."
I don't need to. I am not the one claiming I know what a person I don't know is doing driving a vehicle I don't know why they have or what they do when they're not crossing a bridge for a reason unknown to me. I am not the one making all kinds of judgement calls on an individual I do not know and trying to justify my presuppositions about their life, car, and destination.
You don't even know wether this person was coming from, or going to a destination. They could be going to work, they could be going to court, they could be someone who works a job as a rep.
-
"How is my $800 alone going to change a thing?"
It adds $800 bucks to their funds. And if every other person who claims, like you, that paying that money is better than having it in their pocket, actually pays and supports their stated morals, bingo, you have a lot more than one person paying. Of course this presupposes those who support paying more actually support it by choice. IF they do not, they scarcely have the moral upper hand justifying making others pay.
"The point is the joint funds of the many benifit the many, both directly and indirectly."
I know you believe that. That's great. Why aren't you happy with paying for what you believe and allowing others who don't agree to opt out?
"What do you think they'd do if I just up and sent $800 to the WSDOT?"
If you write donation on it, I'd bet they'd take it.
"They'd sent it back, in all reality, but more to the point, the base road construction projects, etc. on taxes, not on donations from individuals. "
As far as the taxes represent user fees directly related to the service being provided, this is something I don't have a problem with. A gas tax to fund roads is perfectly reasonable. A car tax tossed into the general fund, which is how it used to work, isn't, IMO.
-
"Silence goat! You're acting like the Iraqi Information Minister on this one... "
Interesting. We have people who can know people they don't know, know what they do with the cars when they don't know them, and know where they're going too.
-
"Commuting across 520 solo in a suburban is stupid. period. end of story."
So people should buy two cars if they want to both work and do stuff they may want a 4x4 for?
How do you know they were commuting? Now you can not only tell who they are and what they do or don't do because of what they drive and what they wear, you can tell what they were doing and where they were going? This just gets better and better.
-
"It's why we have a government."
We have a govt so you can complain people don't pay enough, and then you won't pay what you claim is enough, when the choice rests in your hands without relying on anyone else but you?
"I'm liberal, I believe in paying more taxes to fund a society with more social services and programs. "
And yet when you can pay what you did before, at levels you seem to be claiming were OK, you're to be saying you don't. It seems to me the reason you believe in the magic of taxes is it allows you to get someone else to pay them. What's so special about a bill from someone called "taxes"?
If you say you support $1000 tabs on your car, and you'll pay it, why don't you pay that extra $800 bucks or whatever now? You'll force yourself to pay by supporting a tax at the ballot box, but won't force yourself to pay when you can cut out the middleman and not wait for legislation? It's exactly the same at your end, since you claim you're supporting paying more, and if you do it, you don't have to wait to support those vital services.
What someone else is paying is irrelevant, you're telling me by extension you support you paying the former amount, but you don't seem to want to actually discretely *choose* to do it.
"I don't believe in the "everybody for himself and their needs" mentality. "
That's fine. I don't have a single problem with that. What is that extra money doing in your account if you don't believe in that mentality? What is it that frees you from the dictates of your own stated morality, when you're not being forced to pay?
"don'You seem to lean the other way, thinking we'd be better off if the government disappeared and we all looked out for our own. "
I don't believe that. I merely believe it's power should be severely limited. And I believe it's misused by people who want to spend other folks work on stuff they won't support on their own if they're not forced to.
Which is why I'm discussing this, tabs and the "extra" money you may now have in your account is an excellent example.
"How about we just agree to disagree because I've experienced these conversations never go anywhere useful."
I can go with that, but I'm still going to put my non useful two bits in, as you can see!
-
"By buying an SUK, you're telling everyone else to fuck off because you're forcing everyone else to get larger cars in order to be "safe". "
What your judgement of danger is or isn't, doesn't constitute force on anyone elses part.
-
"And, no, this wasn't somebody using his suburban for hauling shit around. It was a single guy (in his 8 person car) wearing a suit."
So again, you know who they are and what they use their rig for based on what they're driving and what they're wearing when they do so? How did you come to the conclusion of what they do or don't do when they're not wearing the suit?
-
"MtnGoat, this has to be the most idiotic reasoning I've ever heard."
Right. We have all kinds of people complaining about what they'd rather their money went to pay for, yet when that money is in their hands and they have the means to send it where they wish on their own initiative, without needing to wait for one single legislator to pass one single bill, to actually *ACT* in service of what they claim to believe without waiting for anyone else......suddenly, all the moral certainty is less important than keeping that money. Funny how that works.
"Tim Eyman managed to convince all the people with low cost cars that them saving a few bucks on tabs would be worth it, when in reality we all the real savings went to those of us with $40k cars who save $1000 a year or more on car tabs. "
Ever consider they figured that few bucks a year was worth it to them?
And if you think the taxes are too low now, as I said before, you can raise your own tax back up to where it was, every year, without waiting for one single legislator. The ball is in your hands on your actual commitment to what it "should" cost you to operate your car. If you feel you are not paying enough, we can see just how much you believe that by where that cash wind up. It's real simple to decide someone else doesn't pay enough. If it's different when it's you, well, that kind of tells it's own tale about the actual commitment to paying more, doesn't it?
"The result is a fucked up state budget, mass transit cuts and even problems funding the road projects tim eyman loves so dearly."
Seems to me what fucks up a state budget just as royally is too much spending.
"We don't live with a donation based tax system."
Didn't say we did. I said if you *really* feel all that stuff is more important than having that money in your pocket, then you are free to do whats more important with it.
"Claiming the the middle class is being hypocrites because they critisize the upper class saving so much then don't send in the extra few $$ they save is idiotic."
I disagree. When we have folks specifically telling us someone *elses* tax cuts are less important than what the complainer wants to see done, I'm merely pointing out the complainer has the chance to fund those programs themselves.
Wether or not the tax system itself is donation based does not mean individuals cannot send checks where ever they want, and if that extra money is actually, really less important than what they say they believe, they'll actually, really act on it. Claiming someone else doesn't "need" their tax rebate is hardly evidence of moral superiority or valid judgement. Sending in one *own* rebate to fund what they claim is better funded than their bank account, is only asking that person to live by their stated claims.
When push comes to shove, whats actually important to them shows in their actions. It costs them nothing to really value programs paid for with somone elses taxes. How much they actually value them is shown when they hold their tax rebate in their hands and it's the money *they* worked for they can send away.
-
"The pidly little amount they get from my check is nothing compared to what the fat cats are saveing."
Then you'll take what you save and send it back to the IRS as a donation, right? You said you'd rather have it spent on all that stuff.
Likewise, if you own a car registered in WA, and saved money when the tab fees dropped, are you sending back the difference every year?
-
"but the hoards of mindless yukon, expedition, etc. drivers) you want, but it's my right to show you no respect and insult you."
When you decide you know someone because of what they're driving, when you don't know them personally or the slightest thing about what they do with it, it's pretty obvious who's mindless.
Which 4WD SUV?
in Spray
Posted
"MtnGoat, you refuse to carry on any sort of converstaion based in reality."
All I'm doing is asking you questions based in exactly what you've stated. You rag on other folks for being selfish, then tell me people will be driving on your roads you payed more for. You tell us gas should cost at least a dollar more, something that will also cost you a dollar more, yet when you can start choosing to pay it right now, you don't want that, oh no.
I guess in the sense you can choose to do what you claim you want for you, right now, but spend your time pointing at everyone else and saying you won't until they're all made to do it to, that reality isn't a factor in the folks I'm dealing with.