Sold out by IFR

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...


Bull****. California is attracting the illegals with free social services
and by Californians offering them jobs. If this stopped, so would most of
the illegal immigration.

But social services are a part of _your_ "General Welfare" clause, and
providing them to all are part of the "Equal Protection" clause. (See the
implications?)

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...
If it works, let me know -- I've been trying for nearly 25 years to get
my
wife
to combine trips.


It only works if she is in the "how do you expect me to get all this done"
mode.

She pays no attention to MY expectations; OTOH, I must abide by _hers_ or
sleep on the couch.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
Actually ending our dependence on foriegn oil would be pretty easy
but
people don't want to do it. In round figures:

We import about a third of our Petroleum
Two thirds of petroleum is used for transportation

It is possible to cut transportation use in half through a
combination
of
fuel efficiency and more efficient trip planning.

The reason we don't is that the costs are horrendous. As for trip
planning
and fuel efficiency, I'd like to see how Soccer Mom's® driving SUV's
and
mini-vans are going to improve their trip planning.



My wife goes to the grocery store (12 miles each way) almost everyday
to
get something that she forgot the previous day, so she could certainly
improve her trip planning. As a result of cheap gasoline, people are
living
great distances from their workplace with commutes of over an hour being
common in many parts of the country. If gasoline was $5/gallon you
would
see commute distances shorten, more telecommuting, smaller vehicles,
better
trip planning.

The economic costs of doing all this are tiny and probably there is
actually
a benefit. If there was simply a $4 tax on gasoline and an equivenenat
tax
credit (transferable) for income taxes, there would be no net economic
cost
and a huge incentive to use energy more efficiently. There would be
casualties in businesses catering to people traveling by auto but that
is
about it.

What about the price of food?

It's amazing how people of an authoritarian bent can never see beyond the
first result.

wrote in message
...


These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily, and
other
border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal
government
refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as
responsible foe
the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is
Uncle
Joe in
California.

No way. California passed laws giving illegals nearly the same benefits
as
legal citizens therefore creating the influx of illegals. Remember the
idiotic drivers license law. Aunt Millie is a whole lot smarter than
Uncle
Joe.

Bull****. That was a desperate act of pandering by the former governor.
The
majority of residents were really ****ed. Thus, that law was repealed
before it
went into effect.

And they voters that dumped Davis (in regards to the states deficit) also
passed new spending measures of $4 billion (??).


Bsides, you're choosing to miss the point: the *federal* government has
failed
to enforce the borders, causing all kinds of intended and unintended
consequences.

The unintended consequences began with the welfare state (nationally and
federally).

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

Bull****. That was a desperate act of pandering by the former governor.
The
majority of residents were really ****ed. Thus, that law was repealed
before it
went into effect.

Bsides, you're choosing to miss the point: the *federal* government has
failed
to enforce the borders, causing all kinds of intended and unintended
consequences.

It is also the Ninth Circuit that forces California taxpayers to pay for
illeagl's medical bills and schooling.

Yup!! That's FEDERAL law.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. ..

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...


These are noble, but simplistic, agruments. California primarily,
and
other
border states are incurring tremendous costs because the federal
government
refuses to enforce our borders. Thus, Aunt Millie in Iowa is as
responsible foe
the failure of her federal government to protect the borders as is
Uncle
Joe in
California.

No way. California passed laws giving illegals nearly the same
benefits
as
legal citizens therefore creating the influx of illegals. Remember
the
idiotic drivers license law. Aunt Millie is a whole lot smarter
than
Uncle
Joe.

Bull****. That was a desperate act of pandering by the former
governor.
The
majority of residents were really ****ed. Thus, that law was repealed
before it
went into effect.

Bsides, you're choosing to miss the point: the *federal* government
has
failed
to enforce the borders, causing all kinds of intended and unintended
consequences.

It is also the Ninth Circuit that forces California taxpayers to pay for
illeagl's medical bills and schooling.

Nonsense. It is the California legislature that enacted many laws to
provide free just about everything for illegal aliens. If California was
not so desirable for the wet backs there would not be the tremendous
influx
of border jumpers. California deserves everything it gets including
Arnold.
Why don't we hear about other border states having the problems California
is having?

The other states have the same problems, but Kalifornia is in the worst
straights due to it's fiscal irresponsibility. The requirements to spend for
illegal's is part of FEDERAL law.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
Actually ending our dependence on foriegn oil would be pretty easy
but
people don't want to do it. In round figures:

We import about a third of our Petroleum
Two thirds of petroleum is used for transportation

It is possible to cut transportation use in half through a
combination
of
fuel efficiency and more efficient trip planning.

The reason we don't is that the costs are horrendous. As for trip
planning
and fuel efficiency, I'd like to see how Soccer Mom's® driving SUV's
and
mini-vans are going to improve their trip planning.



My wife goes to the grocery store (12 miles each way) almost everyday
to
get something that she forgot the previous day, so she could certainly
improve her trip planning. As a result of cheap gasoline, people are
living
great distances from their workplace with commutes of over an hour being
common in many parts of the country. If gasoline was $5/gallon you
would
see commute distances shorten, more telecommuting, smaller vehicles,
better
trip planning.

The economic costs of doing all this are tiny and probably there is
actually
a benefit. If there was simply a $4 tax on gasoline and an equivenenat
tax
credit (transferable) for income taxes, there would be no net economic
cost
and a huge incentive to use energy more efficiently. There would be
casualties in businesses catering to people traveling by auto but that
is
about it.

So, because people don't do what YOU want, you feel it's okay/imperative
to
FORCE them to abide by your whims?

There's a name for that.



You seem to miss the point. If you are taxed for something and given a
credit equal to the amount of the tax, nobody is *forced* to do anything.
Rather it is an opportunity to be better off by using less of the taxed
commodity.

Mike
MU-2

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
Actually ending our dependence on foriegn oil would be pretty easy
but
people don't want to do it. In round figures:

We import about a third of our Petroleum
Two thirds of petroleum is used for transportation

It is possible to cut transportation use in half through a
combination
of
fuel efficiency and more efficient trip planning.

The reason we don't is that the costs are horrendous. As for trip
planning
and fuel efficiency, I'd like to see how Soccer Mom's® driving SUV's
and
mini-vans are going to improve their trip planning.



My wife goes to the grocery store (12 miles each way) almost everyday
to
get something that she forgot the previous day, so she could certainly
improve her trip planning. As a result of cheap gasoline, people are
living
great distances from their workplace with commutes of over an hour
being
common in many parts of the country. If gasoline was $5/gallon you
would
see commute distances shorten, more telecommuting, smaller vehicles,
better
trip planning.

The economic costs of doing all this are tiny and probably there is
actually
a benefit. If there was simply a $4 tax on gasoline and an
equivenenat
tax
credit (transferable) for income taxes, there would be no net economic
cost
and a huge incentive to use energy more efficiently. There would be
casualties in businesses catering to people traveling by auto but that
is
about it.

So, because people don't do what YOU want, you feel it's okay/imperative
to
FORCE them to abide by your whims?

There's a name for that.



You seem to miss the point. If you are taxed for something and given a
credit equal to the amount of the tax, nobody is *forced* to do anything.
Rather it is an opportunity to be better off by using less of the taxed
commodity.

So...if the credit is equal to the tax, it's then a "wash" and the only
increase will be in the bureaucracy that tracks both sides.

I'll bet you one thing; the tax will go in place, but the credit won't, or
it will sunset (but not the tax),

Remember that "prices are measures" . When you try to manipulate them, up or
down, you're interfering with a market...that is, people making free
choices.

I would think that with the track record that government and the bureaucracy
has garnered over the past 100+ years, that no one in their right mind would
concoct such manipulative schemes.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

I highly recommend IFR magazine, and I'll keep reading it even if they
pass my name and address to Amex or TSA.

My wife goes to the grocery store (12 miles each way) almost everyday to
get something that she forgot the previous day, so she could certainly
improve her trip planning. As a result of cheap gasoline, people are living
great distances from their workplace with commutes of over an hour being
common in many parts of the country. If gasoline was $5/gallon you would
see commute distances shorten, more telecommuting, smaller vehicles, better
trip planning.

The economic costs of doing all this are tiny and probably there is actually
a benefit. If there was simply a $4 tax on gasoline and an equivenenat tax
credit (transferable) for income taxes, there would be no net economic cost
and a huge incentive to use energy more efficiently. There would be
casualties in businesses catering to people traveling by auto but that is
about it.

Mike
MU-2



Mike - I don't agree with your statement that there are no economic
costs. The government bureacracy to administer a $4 dollar fuel tax
and process a $4 income tax credit would be enormous.

Also, I presume you would be in favor of refunding your $4 fuel tax to
lower income people who don't pay income tax or pay it at low marginal
rates? If not, then you are really looking at an additional tax on
middle/lower income people at $4 per gallon. If you are interested
in refunding the tax irrespective of taxable income, then you haven't
really caused anyone to change their driving habits - you've just
created a new government department to collect money and refund it to
the same people.

I like a lot of your ideas on this newsgroup. This one, though,
doesn't seem to be as practical as many of your other ones. John