Ugh: GOP Minn. Gov. Pawlenty studying mileage tax, satellite-based tracking
Hey, didn’t conservatives lambaste Obama Transportation Secretary nominee Ray LaHood over his proposal to impose mileage taxes and satellite-based tracking of drivers?
Yes, yes we did. And Obama backed off.
Well, it’s still just as onerous, enviro-nitwitty, and Big Brother-y coming from a GOP governor as it does from an Obama nominee…
State officials say Minnesota is working on a pilot program to test the idea of charging drivers for each mile they drive. Other states around the country are considering a vehicle mileage tax, as revenues from the gas tax are expected to decline.
St. Paul, Minn. — The cost of each gallon of gas includes 18.4 cents to fund federal highway programs, and another 25.5 cents for roads in Minnesota.
But as cars and trucks get better mileage, the gas tax isn’t keeping pace with the need for roads and road work. So another option is gaining traction in Minnesota — a high-tech mileage-based user fee.
“We realize that in the future, cars aren’t going to be powered by fuel, probably,” said Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who signed into law $5 million for the current biennium to study the mileage tax.
Pawlenty said the state is now working on a pilot program to try it out, with an eye toward cars that aren’t even on the road yet…
…The idea is still in the planning stages for now, but the state Department of Transportation will likely ask for proposals on the technology this summer. Satellite technology and computers could turn literally turn every vehicle in Minnesota into a smart car.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Electric Cars in China May Be Worse for the Environment Than Gas-Powered Cars
February 13, 2012 04:21 PM by Doug Powers
49 Comments
Reminder: Global Warming Still Going to Cause Chocolate Shortage
February 11, 2012 02:31 PM by Doug Powers
34 Comments
Concrete Evidence Man is Causing Glacier Retreat
February 2, 2012 03:07 PM by Doug Powers
68 Comments
E-mail of the day: Media Matters coordinates with Capitol Hill “allies” on Keystone XL; Plus: 20,000 jobs “is not that many”
January 25, 2012 11:23 PM by Michelle Malkin
86 CommentsObama’s Green Robber Barons
January 25, 2012 09:13 AM by Michelle Malkin
89 Comments
Obama Admin. Rejects Keystone Pipeline; TransCanada Can Reapply After Finding Alternate Route; Updated
January 18, 2012 12:13 PM by Doug Powers
159 Comments
GM to Call Back Chevy Volts
January 5, 2012 08:59 PM by Doug Powers
71 Comments
Categories: Enviro-nitwits
Redstate
» Morning Briefing for February 14, 2012Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"Sister Toldjah
» Obama’s new budget is a bad jokeJustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False Choices
fenguri; another reason to drive vintage or older cars. you can take the speedo gear off the speedo cable where it goes into the trans, and record zero miles without causing your car to go into appoplexy. pre 1985.
Why does the government need to involve itself in what fuel my personal conveyance takes? I’ll buy what’s most practical and cheapest. When people went from horses to cars, it wasn’t overnight that gas pumps showed up. Someone noticed that they could make a profit by setting up a gas station, so they did. Then another guy did… and another. Lo and behold, we now have gas stations everywhere. At the same time, inn keepers and grocers noticed that they didn’t need to keep their hitching posts as more cars and fewer horses frequented their places. These things take care of themselves. Government doesn’t need to get involved. Government doesn’t need to build the infrastructure for the next generation of cars. If a new fuel-type works, the people will develop the infrastructure themselves.
cheapseat#74 – I will volunteer to take that ’55 T-bird off your hands and give it a loving home, brakes or no brakes.
Sonofdy wrote:
Yeah, but as soon as the technology is actually developed, the EPA will put pixies and unicorns on the endangered species list, and PETA will be protesting the cruel practice of grinding them into dust. And good thoughts are a non-renewable resource; there’s already a shortage on them.
hopefully he is just reviewing it to be educated on the matter. Hopefully it doesn’t lead to an endorsement
Dems were worried about the Patriot Act, but are ok with the government placing GPS trackers in your personal vehicle? Give me break.
Notice that none of this was even a problem until the high gas prices forced people to conserve. As soon as the taxes collected on the gas went down, the elected officials noticed. These are the same people who wanted us to use less gas because of global warming and these are the same elected officials who want to impose carbon fees. We have elected these clowns to find new ways to tax us. Will they use the money to fix the roads or just collect the taxes for something else?
Piece of cake, SSG.
When my infantry unit trained at Camp Ripley, MN in Janaury and February, our diesel vehicles were literally left running for two weeks.
So without plug-ins or heated barns you just run every school bus in MN continually all winter.
Uff da!
Remember – he only has an R after his name – not a “Conservative”.
You don’t think that having good public transit systems and health care help the professions themselves to exist in the first place? North Carolina, for example, has plenty of jobs in banking in Charlotte and in research industries in RTP, but that doesn’t mean it’s on equal footing with NYC or Boston to get the best and brightest.
You don’t see any benefit to the rich from having healthy pregnant women and children? You could argue that Medicaid benefits that go to indigent seniors don’t benefit others if you really don’t feel like you benefit from a society that cares for its elderly.
OK, I’ll ask.
How are the “best and brightest” defined?
There. FIFY. And the answer is no. Producers tend to be able to pay for our own medical care or earn the coverage for it ourselves. Thanks.
this was the joker that was all the talk of VP nominee the day Sarah was announced.
Reinforces my belief that Sarah was the right pick.
granite, the “best and brightest” are creating stimulus pkgs.,holding tribunals/inquisitions in Washington D.C. – or pumping themselves up to face Leno tonight.
RSS and other socialists: I want your money by any means necessary.
Conservatives and other low-tax minded individuals: I want to keep more of my money and have more say over my life.
So if you’re successful and earn a lot of money you don’t get to keep it because it’s your responsibility to take care of “indigents” and other “unfortunates” whether it’s fair or not.
This is the “new America” we’re living in. You can’t be successful without paying extortion to drive your vehicle, heat your house, or some other usory tax to some “unknown quantity” for a purpose that either has no oversight or is constantly changed to fit the political meme of the day.
Man, RSS, I feel better that you and yours are looking after the rest of us by stealing other people’s wealth at the same time you’re enriching yourselves. Wow, I feel like celebrating!
That’s easy – it’s not those who are most productive, it’s the ones who are for hope and change.
Well said.
As Noah says to The Lord in the old Bill Cosby album piece:
“RIIIGGGHHHT”!
Don’t “producers” also benefit from having a healthy and well-educated workforce?
Why can’t you be the voice of the Republican party?
Are you really that brain dead? Of course producers benefit – we OBJECT to the ONLY way that you can get a healthy and well educated workforce is by government means. In fact, we prefer getting same by the most efficient means. As far as I can tell, gov’t is never the most efficient means to accomplish an end.
Red: people in that workforce ARE producers. People in the workforce who aren’t producers tend to get removed from the workforce, or become government employees.
RedStateSkeptic,
A friend of mine was transferred from upstate NY to Georgia. I called him after 6 months or so to see how he was doing. At the same salary, he had sold his two bedroom house in NY and bought a much larger 3 bedroom house – but his mortgage payment dropped because of much lower property taxes, his state income tax withholding dropped about $100/week, gasoline was cheaper, in short he calculated just moving from NY to GA was equivalent to about a 10% pay raise.
I can tell you, having lived for 6 months or longer in 9 different states, that NY is the most expensive – and offers the least amenities for the money. If not for family reasons, I would move and the first choices would be states that are not blue. People like you move to these red states for economic reasons, then immediately screw them up by voting for liberal, failed socialist policies.
RSS, it appears that this is what you would have as an ideal America,
I’m Too Fat, Now Pay Me!
Tha sad thing is, with the idiot you surely helped put in office, it is coming.
Because of socialists like Red State Skeptic and their obsessive need to control everyone else’s lives.
One state that has one of the smallest populations in the lower 48 is Wyoming. They have beautifully maintained roads. They also have an abundance of oil and gas and not afraid to drill for it. I’d like to see some bureaucrat suggest to the ranchers there they wanted to hang a device on their vehicle to keep track of their mileage.
A lot of producers in the work force were once children of indigent mothers.
Taxes, taxes, taxes. We hear government speak only about its ever increasing need for more revenue. However, we never hear about restraint, cutting spending, cutting waste, or cutting outdated and useless programs. The tax day tea parties need to be attended by every American.
24Klady, you made me think of a point that I had previously had not thought of. Many of the miles driven by farmers and ranchers are on unpaved county roads, or on private ranch roads. These are not being funded by the gas tax and surely would not be funded by any milage tax.
A lot of producers in the work force also were once grounded for not cleaning their bedrooms. What is your point?
That’s why parents were invented: to provide for children. We also invented charities, to meet the needs of the legitimately unfortunate. I can recommend several to which you can write a check.
What I object to is your donating other people’s money, through taxation and redistribution.
RedStateSkeptic,
I was raised on a farm in western Nebraska – wasn’t a lot of money in the family. A lot of Christmases my presents were articles of clothing that I needed anyway. My parents refused to accept food stamps or welfare, even though they qualified for such.
Everyone of my brothers or sisters earned college degrees (six sisters, four brothers), with three of us now having earned graduate degrees. We all earned the money for college by working or joining the military. All of us are producers, and are damned tired of having to foot the bill for non-producers who are capable of working, but choose not to.
What’s your point about children of indigent mothers?
My point is you’re not going to have a productive work force if a lot of the work force didn’t make it to their 12th birthday because the state wouldn’t spring for a bone marrow transplant or proper diabetic care.
I agree that once you’re grown, you’re on your own. But spending for child medical care isn’t just welfare. It’s a great investment.
In other words, CWinNy, your life experience taught you that the way to live life was to provide for yourself, not depend on a check from the government.
RSS must be shocked and appalled at such a notion.
Sure they do, but if you think that’s what New York is going bankrupt on you’re even dumber than I thought you were. New York’s transit system is in decline, providing less service for higher fares and it just eliminated its capital improvement program. Know why? Because despite a confiscatory level of taxation it’s not getting any money. The money is being wasted on other things liberals love, like municipal employee unions and welfare.
I grew up in NYC and currently live in a suburb of it. If you think you’re going to tell me how it is here you’re out of your mind.
So let me get this straight:
According to you a person graduates Harvard with an MBA and is trying to decide where to live. He looks at high-tax New York with its out of control Medicaid spending and says “hey, by living there I’ll be contributing to the wellbeing of indigent seniors, which will help humanity as a whole. Yeah, it’ll cost me 40% of my paychek but it’s totally worth it for that good feeling I’ll have in my heart!” Then, having done that calculation he moves to New York.
Are you seriously suggesting anyone thinks like that?
Your original assertion was that these “rich” states are rich because their tax and spend policies attract the “best and the brightest”. In doing so you didn’t offer an opinion, you offered a statement of fact. Your statement is not only illogical it’s provably wrong. Why don’t you just man up and admit it?
There isn’t one. It is a comment that merits at best a, “so what?”
RSS lives in a fantasy world where all tax money is wisely spent, and state health care programs are limited only to those who truly need care.
Also, there are unicorns.
Red: an indigent minor needing a bone marrow transplant is cataclysmic and occasional. They are rare enough that non-government charities can and do cover these. I personally know of two recent situations like that, plus a similar one, all of which were addressed by private charities and by doctors willing to donate their kind services, without a dime of taxpayer funding. Using this as a justification for taxing money from producers and redistributing it is a red herring.
Proper diabetic care is common, routine, and inexpensive. Millions deal with it.
Next.
enough of this crap. He just lost whatever chance he had for my vote if he ran for President. I don’t care what his record is, what he does etc. anyone that would sign onto this invasion of privacy is a big government wannabe and needs to be shown the door.
The state is not the ONLY way health care can be provided. You have put forth a false choice. It is not state health care of none.
I’ll say it again – the state is usually the least efficient way of providing any service.
Why do you insist on having things done in the least efficient way?
I’ll also posit – how did America get great? Did we get there by the socialist utopia you so desire or by individualism?
Medicaid pays for the indigent to have proper child and prenatal care, which gives you an able work force to support bankers (or be bankers). You can’t argue with that.
Among other public works, NYC offers awesome public transportation, an awesome police force (thanks to Rudy), clean and pleasant streets (also thanks to Rudy), and wonderful parks all over the city. All those things are attractive to a college graduate.
I generally agree. But without the state, there is no way that a poor pregnant woman is going to get proper prenatal care.
You know, the Liberal Dream is everyone living in MegaCities like NY: The Sustainable Growth crapola. But, even though it is Ludditie, it will make it easier to control the Unwashed.
So: make it soooo expensive to drive you have to get a job and move to a Megacity or a Public Transport line. Collapse the economy, and raise price-to-drive and presto!
Hunter #126 – you’ve got that right about farmers and ranchers possibly driving, hundreds if not thousands of miles year, on dirt/unpaved roads. The maintenance on those roads are their responsibility in many cases – yet, if we moved to a mileage penalty system recorded once a year when licensing a vehicle they’d be paying for service they were not getting. Taxation without representation? Never bothered craptocrats in the past.
what about her husband? her family? maybe she shouldn’t get pregnant without a husband to take care of her…novel idea isn’t it?
instead, lets subsidize irresponsiblity..so the government can have more power over people’s lives…
Yet another Republican that has fallen off the Conservative Wagon. They usually get back on a few months before election time…only to fall off again later.
RedStateSkeptic,
Of course you are not going to have a productive work force if a lot of them don’t make it to their 12th birthday because of . . . (pick any disease or health problem at random).
Just how many children do you know that died before 12 because of lack of a bone marrow transplant or proper diabetic care? Just what percentage of the population do you think suffers from these particular afflictions – and do not have access to health care?
What an idiotic statement.
I reject the premise of your pseudo-argument.
If she’s poor, she shouldn’t have gotten pregnant–it’s not as if she slipped & fell on a turkey baster full of semen…
(many thanks to Ann Coulter)
“Inexpensive” doesn’t cut it when your disposable income is zero.
What world do y’all live in? There are tons of medical procedures, some routine, some not, that kids need that don’t necessarily cost a lot, but just won’t get unless the state is paying for them. Do you have any idea how much child dental care costs?
RedStateSkeptic,
If NYC is such a magnet for the best and brightest, why haven’t you moved there? Oh yeah, aside from being neither bright nor one of the best, nothing beats the lifestyle of GA. Why wouldn’t a bright person prefer the lifestyle in GA as opposed to . . . public works, NYC offers awesome public transportation, an awesome police force (thanks to Rudy), clean and pleasant streets (also thanks to Rudy), and wonderful parks all over the city. All those things are attractive to a college graduate.
I’m a college graduate, and you couldn’t pay me enough to make me live in NYC.
wighttrasch – thank you and Ann Coulter for the great line.
RedStateSkeptic,
Do you anyone who lives in Britain? Did you know that 14% of Britons provide their own dental care – because the state provided dental care is so horrific. Britain in 2007 issued over 60,000 “health tourist” visas – for Britons who traveled to Eastern Europe or Asia for dental or health care. Over 24,000 Britons were told this year that cancer treatments were too expensive: so tough luck.
That is what you will get with your State provided health care. Take a little time to find out how it doesn’t work so good in countries where they have it, before thinking it is something to be desired for the US.
This is an emotional argument. I see no reason or facts that back this argument. How did healthcare for children suddenly become a right? SCHIP like other taxpayer-subsidized medical programs is fraught with abuse. There are many parents who don’t want the responsibility of paying for their kids’ healthcare and want the State and the public to fund it. How is this fair to the rest of us? You have not answered this question sufficiently.
It’s a lousy investment fraught with abuse. There are many kids who shouldn’t be covered under SCHIP but that didn’t stop emotion-laden arguments instead of real world, hard facts analysis, from dominating the debate. It’s not my responsibility for paying for some kid’s healthcare when the parent can’t be bothered to or won’t.
I know you’re steering this forum off-course with the concept that now the State should be our mommy and daddy but you need to buy a clue. People in poverty in the ’60′s without healthcare (like my mother) did okay and are living productive lives. How many kids are really getting necessary healthcare and how many aren’t? That’s what I want to do.
I think you expect there to be no oversight about where the taxes go. Should illegal aliens’ kids get taxpayer-subsidized healthcare too? How many of these folks are stealing services from those who actually need them? Your characterization is too simplistic, uses emotion to rule the day, and discounts oversight. Not the best formula for a healthy society either.
Another fine example of TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION
RSS:
well educated workforce…
Yah, too too bad Government-Union schools don’t provide that, ain’t it?
If they did, we wouldn’t be here discussing this…
“A lot of the workforce” had bone marrow transplants at age 12, paid for by tax money? And now Minnesota has to compete with NY for those patients by keeping track of your mileage and taxing you for driving?
Whether or not indigent mom should have gotten pregnant is neither here nor there. We’re not helping her. We’re helping her poor kids.
But since the poor are the only people that actually have enough babies to keep the population from shrinking, it’s a good thing that they do, because we need those babies in the work force 20 years later. Otherwise, we’re Japan.
And now I’m going to drop the bomb. It’s not like it’s a coincidence that so many of the kids who need that health care are the same race as the one our government oppressed for hundreds of years. Yeah, those kids deserve our care.
Of course I can. For starters I’d ask you to offer some support for the idea that these children-of-the-indigent actually grow up to be the backbone of the financial industry. Because I’ve got news for you, in the 13+ years I’ve been in this industry I have yet to meet a single person who ever needed medicaid.
The things you list are attractive to anyone. They also have nothing to do with why the city is broke. New York City could cut its budget in half without cutting a single cop, fireman or blade of grass. The overwhelming majority of the State’s tax dollars goes into sinkholes of pork, patronage and liberal sacred cows.
So I need to pay for the healthcare of people just because they’re black? Is that your “bomb”?
I notice you dont seem to be making with the donations from your own wallet.
Here’s a link to an AP story about British dental care (note: they claim 6% rather than the 14% I cited from a different article I had read).
British Dental care
Here’s a second story about the state of British Health Care.
I’m limiting the links because you referenced dental care for kids. This in a nation that has had socialized health care for decades now. You can find similar articles about their health care and their waiting lists.
As far as I can tell based on our new hires (none lately) and younger family members – most college grads go to work in NYC for one of two reasons:
1) Their industry of choice is based there (finance, advertising, entertainment)
2) They’re young and they want to have fun. NYC is a fun place for 20 somethings (although, that will become less true as the depression builds and city services precipticiously decline).
I feel like I’ve had this useless, cyclic conversaton with a liberal before. I’m getting a feeling of dejavu all over again. It’s like:
RSS is the reincarnation of Rusty.
Does anybody else get that feeling too?
Then get a job. If a set of parents doesn’t love their child enough to work to support him or her, they have some serious explaining to do.
“But I don’t have the skills.” Education in this country has been free for decades. A high school education is sufficient for plenty of jobs that support a family – or would be sufficient, if liberals hadn’t done such a peachy job wrecking the school systems.
Basically, if you’re limiting this conversation to girls who chose not to finish school, chose not to obtain a job, chose not to better herself, chose to get pregnant without marriage, and think America owes it to her to give her a living, parent her children, and provide all her needs and wants – then forget it. The legitimately unfortunate I can handle; the voluntarily dependent are on their own.
Well, I worked for investment banks in NYC, and yes, a lot of people depended on the state when they were kids. Mostly staff of course.
Fixed that for you.
Look, if you want to argue that someone deserves to have his money taken away because he’s white and given to someone who deserves to have that money because he’s black then just go ahead and make that argument. Don’t try to sell some nonsense about these “rich” (meaning near-bankrupt) states being attractive to college graduates though. It’s not true, and by digging your heels in you look much more foolish than you would by simply admitting you were wrong.
RSS – referencing your “bomb” – would that be the same children that ‘Bambi sees no problem in aborting so as not to add a burden? Would that also be the same children that the abortion mill founder saw no problem in killing?
Yes. Children of any color need love and support, starting with their parents. But, how about not conceiving them if you want to thrust their care onto someone else.
Right. It’s because of liberals that Black America is a third world nation.
I call BS.
Excepting maybe the people who push mops around (not that there’s anything wrong with that) the staff I worked with all came from middle to upper class families. There’s no way “a lot” of them grew up on medicaid.
Thanks for admitting it.
Of course, assuming you didn’t really intend to admit it I’ll just remind you that sarcasm is not an argument. If it’s not because of liberals that black America is a “third world nation” then kindly point me to one example where black America was actually improved by your programs. Point me to a single inner city where conditions didn’t decline in direct proportion to the amount of liberal social engineering they were subjected to.
Go ahead. Show me one.
RSS, did the light finally just go on? Did we just witness a miracle? Do you really agree with that fact?
(Don’t worry, I know the light will never come on for you, sad really.)
Why should I pay one extra cent in taxes because this woman couldn’t say no?
I understand fully about why that child having a proper upbringing is important, but this woman is just plain stupid for having a child she can’t take care of. Pain and suffering are the price for stupidity. How will she ever learn and make the decision to improve her life and that of her child if she never goes for want of anything?
You sit there all self-righteous thinking you’re helping, but you are just making sure that the suffering lasts longer.
it is. and it is a deliberate policy to break up the family, encourage dependence…so people will vote democratic.
So, living on the dole prepares one well for life now? Is that your argument? What about living by your means and not somebody else’s labor?
I didn’t have healthcare for a few years while I was in grad school and I didn’t come begging to the State for my “handout.” And it is a handout that makes beggers of those who cannot (or will not) do for themselves.
I’m not sure you and I have the exact same idea of what poverty is. Poverty isn’t living on somebody else’s sweat and labor. It’s, as Dave Ramsey says, an income flow problem.
You’re making excuses for welfare and dependency that breeds a mindset that revolves around the State, not the individual. That is not only dangerous but irresponsible.
And by the way, the taxpayer isn’t getting much for the much vaunted, liberal sacred cows of medicare and medicaid. They are fraught with abuse, they’re now open to anyone who makes as much as 80k (SCHIP) and aren’t even audited.
The bottom line for you and many other liberals about why I and other hard-working taxpayers should foot the bill for the welfare state is: YOU FEEL SORRY FOR THESE SUCKERS. My empathy was wrung dry a long time ago when the kids I taught who were getting free lunches and the like were sauntering in with the latest in cell phones and IPod’s.
It’s a big scam and you can’t even own up to it. That’s the sad fact. You’d rather the taxpayer get scammed then actually support who are “in need.” Not everybody who is “poor” (in the 80k category anyway) is in need.
I want to hear silence from you. Thanks.
As a Minnesotan, I have been wasting all this time apologizing for the Al Franken disaster, when I should have been apologizing for Gov. Pawlenty. Who knew??
No BS. I can say this conclusively. You must not work in NYC.
Um, emjem… we’re working and they’re benefitting. Who are you calling a sucker?
Finally, we have an admission. What slavery couldn’t do, what the Klan couldn’t do, and what Jim Crow couldn’t do, liberal policies like welfare have accomplished: destroyed the black family and kept blacks down.
#164
RSS:
In a word: yes.
yeah because I PAY FOR IT…just like everyone who has kids should…duhhhhhhh
again where is their father and mother and why aren’t they paying??
And, I’ll add:
it was on purpose, and well executed by the Racist Liberal (redundant reference) SOBs.
If the
liberalsocialist (call ‘em what they are) poster you’re conversing with posts the location in the park, via GPS coordinates, where he told us he had to “make a deposit” because the chipotle he ate wouldn’t let him get home in time,…you may just have a point!Bravo! You’ve finally gotten it.
Grew up on York Avenue. Went to high school on West 16th street. Worked my whole early career up and down Broad Street including a stint at the Amex. Left NYC right after 9/11, since those religion-of-peace adherents killed 90% of my clients and nearly got me in the bargain.
And you “conclusively” say this from where? Georgia? I won’t bother going off on a long diatribe. I think everyone here knows which of us is full of it.
Exactly how many people do you think are on Medicare, anyway? And using your logic shouldn’t the financial industry be bursting at the seams with african-americans and hispanics? I mean, if most of them are on Medicare, and a lot of Medicare children go on to hold up the banking industry, then it stands to reason there shouldn’t be that many whites on Wall Street.
Logic isn’t really your thing, is it?
@ James Felix:
There you go, stereotyping these poor, oppressed minorities as the criminal class, vis-a-vis bank robbing. Everyone knows Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and everyone else who gamed the CRA emptied banks of a lot more money than common robbers have. You should be ashamed…
It was when I was there. Staff, anyway.
Um, no, it’s because of liberals that a lot of people think anyone in the USA can be compared to the ‘third world’.
Another big lie.
You need to visit the ‘third world’. The USA has the richest poor on the planet.
Now skedaddle.
Seems this sort of silliness would directly into the unreasonable search part of the 4th Amendment.
IMHO, the solution to revenue to support roads should look back to how things were done before there were cars via general commerce tax revenue or tolls of some sort.
That’s a key point. The only retort I’ve seen to this is some variation of “She shouldn’t have gotten preggers”, or “it’s not my problem”.
Despite the best effort of conservatives to stop it, children will always have a right to health services in this country no matter how impoverished or irresponsible the parents are. Conservatives typically want poor unwanted children to be born into crappy, decadent, impoverished, and often abusive households for “moral” reasons. However, once the kids are here, they don’t want the government involved to protect the health and well being no matter how crappy the home life may be. I have no problem with folks who are pro-life, but I loathe people who aren’t pro quality of life once the kids are here. Government(no thanks to the conservatives here), will always have an interest and say in making sure the health needs of poor and helpless children are met. The kids don’t deserve to suffer just because momndad may be irresponsible skanks.
What else should we expect from Minni-Soda with their fracked up elections?
undresiege: The problem with that is that often you end up with the government deciding what is the “correct” peranting techneques. One thing I have learned is that the government makes a really crappy perant.
Mn should NOT increase revenue. Most of the decrease in revenue is probably because the higher costs of gas makes people drive less. If you are driving less then there is less need for road maintenance, therefore being self correcting. Less driving = less road maintenance = less revenue needs. If the difference is caused by a few Prius’ on the road then figure out how to cut waste in all areas of government.
wrong again, oh wrong one.
Apparently, the crappy, decadent (?) etc types are the ones who really want to have babies, since they are the ones doing that very thing.
Nonsense. That’s what charity is for. Having the government provide it only drives the cost up and efficiency down.
Not much if you have a Mom that makes you brush, at least occasionally.
Because when they turn 18, they turn into voters who believe they’re entitled to a myriad of things that people should have to work for.
If you subsidize poverty, you get more of it.
Undresiege: I’m going to give you an opportunity to rethink that.
My wife and I took an unwed mother and her daughter, unrelated to us, into our home for fourteen months in an effort to help her get on her feet. We provided meals, a roof, and a life for this woman without accepting a dime from any source – the government, the woman herself, or any other source, and we didn’t even try to make any of our expenses tax deductable. We arranged for an office job for this woman (which she managed to lose seven months later) paying well above the minimum wage.
THAT’S WHY I’VE GOT A RIGHT TO SHOOT MY MOUTH OFF ABOUT RSS AND HIS LIBERAL CLAPTRAP. When I see liberals start digging down deep into their own pockets on this level, I’ll recognize their right to argue with me on this subject.
Conservatives do not “want poor unwanted children to be born into crappy, decadent, impoverished, and often abusive households.” Conservatives expect children to be wanted, and think unwanted children should be rare – not a way of life. Conservatives don’t accept abuse to inevitable. Conservatives expect parents to care for and provide for their children. And for those instances where financial assistance is warranted, conservatives believe this is the job of charity, where individual givers can support those charities that succeed at the task – not government taking it by force in taxation and giving it without regard for the benefit that assistance has.
Dismissive statements like that one of yours don’t fly with me.
These New York workers don’t seem so thrilled to work in RSS’s worker’s utopia. Apparently, they would rather slit their own throats than keep their company viable.
Sometimes gov. get’s too involved, and sometimes they aren’t involved enough(take a look at some of the abuse cases that DCFS have tragically dropped the ball on). What I think should be beyond dispute is that, some parents are neglectful, broke, or both. Taxpayers have an obligation to make sure that the basic health safety needs of kids are met.
I guess it is the conservatives who are taxing charitable donations? I am a conservative, and thus know for a fact that I lost my deduction on $400.00 of the donations I made last year here in Michigan. What surprises me is Da Bama didn’t tax more of those.
Democrats must love these poor people as they get so much use of them come election time. Speaking of wanting poor unwanted children to be born into crappy, decadent, impoverished, and often abusive households, how is it that ChiTcago, a liberal stronghold for as long as I’ve been alive [over 40 years], continues to keep their poor unwanted children to be born into crappy, decadent, impoverished, and often abusive households? If liberalism were the answer, those wouldn’t exist, right?
The fundamental flaw I see in your argument is that you assume there are lots of charitable people out there, in all communities, like you and your wife. Folks like you aren’t out there in abundance everywhere, and kids are suffering in the mean time. Moreover, few conservatives(or liberals) that I’ve encountered have stepped up to the plate like you did, yet they judge and dismiss. Again, the basic argument on this thread concerning RSS’ point is, “Chick shouldn’t have gotten recklessly knocked up, it’s not my problem, and any help will be abused anyway.” That’s insensitive rubbish, and kids are suffering.
Undresiege: if that’s what you believe, then let’s think this through to its logical conclusion.
You say taxpayers have an obligation to meet the needs of impoverished children. If that’s what the majority of people in America feel, then let’s stop taxing people for it, and instead, let them keep that money so they can give it to charities and other services voluntarily, deciding for themselves where their dollars will do the most good. If you’re right and that’s what most people feel, then the children in legitimate need will be cared for. And the money won’t be allowed to go to Dad’s crack problem, Mom’s bourbon, or lottery tickets.
If it’s the will of the people, it will happen. Do you trust that?
The fundamental flaw I see in your argument is that your belief is that the money should be taken involuntarily from all taxpayers and redistributed as some bureaucrats see fit, with the burden falling the most heavily on the sector paying the disproportionately higher share of the burden. You’re fine with being charitable with other people’s money.
I’ve told you why I have a right to my position on this. What’s your story?
I don’t believe in majority rule when it comes to saving helpless children. I don’t trust people to decide on their own to pay for the needs of society’s most helpless. Like I keep saying, a typical conservative mantra is, “Not my problem, and the parents should have been more responsible.” That type of rhetoric ain’t making sure kids get their meds and surgical procedures. That type of talk can’t keep a child safe in a neglectful or abusive home. You’re describing some type of utopia.
I was a social worker for 10 years, and you wouldn’t believe the horrors I’ve seen. I’ve been police for two, and you wouldn’t believe the horrors I’ve seen.
I think you describe a proposition that is optimistic. However, the typical conservative, as has been demonstrated on this page, believes in the “bootstrap” approach for little freaken kids who don’t have the boots or the knowledge or where to find them. I’m happy to work for a government that at least gives a damn.
karnold,
You’re wasting your time & energy. Under knows full-well he’s lying in his premise of US Citizen miserliness.
Unless, of course, he doesn’t bother read or think. The data is spilling out all over the place, but he won’t look.
And, that data also shows that Conservs give more (of their own substance) to charity than Liberals… by orders of magnitude.
Of course, many studies have proved that Liberals give more — of other people’s substance.
What I’ve found interesting in all the myriad studies performed on this subject is that as a group even Conservs who are self-proclaimed athiests give more than “religious” Liberals (as a group).
Never have been able to figure out the “whys” behind that….