Shout Box

Who's Online
0 registered (), 10 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >
Topic Options
#42393 - 12/17/08 01:26 PM Go F Yourself Governor Patterson
strat Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 04/30/01
Posts: 4242
...and your 18% tax on coca cola. Freekin moron.

Top
#42396 - 12/17/08 03:07 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: strat]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
Next it will be Tabletalk pies at Stewarts, if so, then all bets are off.

Top
#42397 - 12/17/08 03:11 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: strat]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
These loser politicians just can't understand that you can't tax your way to profitability. Spending is never cut, growth is just "reduced" and labeld a cut. At least NJ should profit when shoppers come over for cheaper goods.

Top
#42399 - 12/17/08 03:17 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: alicex4]
RangerRob Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 06/06/00
Posts: 3764
Loc: Ulster County, NY
Umm....Alice have you heard the proposals? Massive cuts in spending across the board. And, do you drink so much soda that this will affect you? Maybe he is trying to convince parents to stop buying soda for their children and end the addiction. Isn't that the reasoning behind cigarette taxes? I find it quite ironic that a Democrat is showing fiscal restraint and the NY Republicans are crying foul.

RR

Top
#42400 - 12/17/08 03:20 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: RangerRob]
Dillbag Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/02/06
Posts: 1130
Loc: "The Town"
Problem I have with the Soda tax is that it is ONLY on NON-DIET SODA!!!

WTF!!! So it's ok to purchase the stuff with even MORE weird chemicals in it?
_________________________
...anethum graveolens cucumis sativus!

Top
#42404 - 12/17/08 05:04 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: alicex4]
d-elvis Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 04/26/00
Posts: 3650
Loc: Central PA
least there will be another Kennedy as senator
_________________________
"Marriage Survivor"

Top
#42405 - 12/17/08 05:10 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: d-elvis]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5962
Loc: 212 land
I'm with RangerRob on this one. Cussing out Patterson is like cussing out your surgeon for removing something from your body that must be removed. Cuss him out if it makes you feel better, but what must be done must be done. Taking shit from constituents is an unwritten part of the job description.
_________________________

Top
#42408 - 12/17/08 06:32 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: oenophore]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
Explain to me how this plan is either bold or innovative. Where are the sharp cuts in government spending? Seems like a Pataki-Cuomo redux.


Edited by alicex4 (12/17/08 06:32 PM)

Top
#42409 - 12/17/08 06:37 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: alicex4]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
America Will Soon Owe More Than Its Citizens Are Worth

NEW YORK (Dec. 15, 2008) - The sum of America's liabilities and other financial commitments now exceeds the collective net worth of its citizens, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation has calculated using the latest official data. Growth in the government's unfunded promises for social insurance programs such as Medicare, combined with a drop in Americans' net worth due in part by lower home equity values, is causing this unprecedented milestone.

The Foundation's calculations are based primarily on the new consolidated federal financial statements as of September 30, 2008 which do not reflect the additional toll taken by more recent market declines, bailout packages, and record October and November deficits. The financial statements show approximately $56.4 trillion in debts, liabilities, and unfunded promises for Medicare and Social Security versus the Federal Reserve's estimate a total household net worth of $56.5 trillion, both as of September 30, 2008.

"Given more recent developments, it's clear that America now owes more than its citizens are worth," said Foundation President and CEO David M. Walker. "Passing this shocking milestone highlights the need for President-elect Obama and the next Congress not only to turn the economy around and boost consumer confidence, but to put a process in place that will lead to tough choices getting made to strengthen the government's financial condition once the economy begins growing again."


Since its launch in July 2008, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation has invested nearly $11 million in grants to raise awareness of, and seek solutions to the fiscal challenges posed by the rising costs of health care and retirement and near-zero household savings rate. Among the latest are grants to Emory University and the Institute of Medicine to examine health care costs and outcomes; grants to promote pubic awareness and discussion of growing obligations for Social Security and Medicare; and a grant to fund development of a set of key outcome-based indicators that will help the government and the public assess where we stand and how we compare to other industrialized nations on a range of economic and other issues.

Top
#42410 - 12/17/08 08:06 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: strat]
strat Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 04/30/01
Posts: 4242
4% of tax on downloading music.

We have to stop these kids from listening to this music. It's destroying our world.

Freeking moron.

Top
#42411 - 12/17/08 09:09 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: alicex4]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: alicex4
Where are the sharp cuts in government spending?


How about an "actual cut" of $700 million in school aid, for starters?

Even though the total proposed budget is still an increase of a half percent over this year, some of those costs may be outside of the government's control, such as required pension payments, bond payments, or Medicare commitments. So it's a lot more complicated than saying if the overall budget is up, then there weren't serious spending cuts.

Anyway, I'd gladly agree to not taxing sugary soft drinks if we could stop subsidizing corn and let the price of those drinks reflect the true cost of the corn syrup that goes into them.

Top
#42412 - 12/17/08 09:14 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5962
Loc: 212 land
Anyway, I'd gladly agree to not taxing sugary soft drinks if we could stop subsidizing corn and let the price of those drinks reflect the true cost of the corn syrup that goes into them.

Let's not mix state and federal issues. I suspect all of us would like excise or sales tax burdens to fall on things we don't use.
_________________________

Top
#42413 - 12/17/08 09:34 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: oenophore]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: oenophore
I suspect all of us would like excise or sales tax burdens to fall on things we don't use.


I use sugary soft drinks. And I think they should be more expensive to reflect their true cost, regardless of the mechanism. (At least eliminating the subsidy would actually save taxpayer dollars on the federal side.)

Plus I think my income taxes should be back at least where they were during the Clinton years.

So not all of us think that just everyone else should have to bear the burden of balancing the budget. If we're serious about spending cuts, I think we should be willing to say what we're willing to give up or help pay for, not what everyone else should have to give up or have to pay for.

Top
#42414 - 12/17/08 09:40 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: strat]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5962
Loc: 212 land
How would Governor Strat propose balancing the state budget?
_________________________

Top
#42415 - 12/17/08 11:37 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: oenophore]
JenRed Offline
newbie

Registered: 01/29/07
Posts: 47
On another note if this does pass you will be able to purchase wine in grocery stores in New York, not great for the small retailer but good for consumers


Edited by JenRed (12/17/08 11:37 PM)

Top
#42417 - 12/17/08 11:55 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: JenRed]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
eliminating farm subsidies is a scary idea. how many people have to go hungry before the folly becomes apparent?

Top
#42422 - 12/18/08 05:43 AM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: pedestrian]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: pedestrian
eliminating farm subsidies is a scary idea. how many people have to go hungry before the folly becomes apparent?


Not that this is a NY State issue, but...

People won't go hungry. We grow too much corn, which is why so much of it gets turned into corn syrup in soft drinks, or goes to feed cattle instead of people, or gets turned into inefficient ethanol. We could grow far less corn and still have plenty to feed people at the same price if we reduced these other uses. And fewer subsidies means more money available for food stamps and other support for people who really need it. So getting rid of subsidies could result in fewer hungry people.

And we won't have so much in taxpayer dollars going to Archer Daniels Midland, which really doesn't need our support. And higher prices for sweeteners (to return tangentially to the op) may lead to a price rise and a reduction in consumption in items which use it, which may reduce the incidence of diabetes, the treatment of which also costs us money (not to mention the burden on those with diabetes).

Top
#42425 - 12/18/08 04:54 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: strat]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5962
Loc: 212 land
There's an appropriate op-ed piece in the Dec. 18 NY Times on this very subject.
_________________________

Top
#42427 - 12/18/08 06:30 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: oenophore]
quanto_the_mad Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/14/02
Posts: 2628
Loc: brooklyn
I wonder how hard Coke & Pepsi will fight this?

Typically, in a bad economy, families switch from name brands to generics, not much anyone can do about this.

However, both Coke and Pepsi have zero/low calorie alternatives now that are not "diet"; Coke Zero and Pepsi One. These won't be taxed, which means they won't be that much more expensive than the generic, or might even be the same price.

I wouldn't expect many people to switch to diet, but there may be more that would rather switch to Zero or One instead of a generic. Coke and Pepsi might fight the tax since they have other brands that are affected, but the tax may actually help stem the flow of people to the generics.
_________________________


Top
#42429 - 12/18/08 06:57 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: quanto_the_mad]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
Daniel, when farm subsidies were first invented, it was a lot simpler: we simply paid farmers to burn crops. Why? Because we need to maintain excess supply of a resource as critical as our food supply. It's basic economics: when the demand for a commodity exceeds the capacity for quick supply increases, prices will skyrocket. When excess capacity exists, prices will fall to the marginal cost of the commodity. When we subsidize farmers, we pay them to burn a percentage of crops, and we pay for the burned crops at the marginal cost. This is a better deal than paying the 2x or 5x higher prices that result when prices begin to climb above marginal cost. Simply put, farm subsidies ensure adequate investment in our infrastructure.

Putting corn to nonessential uses such as sweetener or relatively inefficient biofuel is simply a better deal than outright burning the crops used to be...

Top
#42430 - 12/18/08 07:53 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: pedestrian]
talus Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/23/04
Posts: 1259
obviously Patterson has not SEEN this commercial

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X23MoTtVplE&feature=related
_________________________
John Okner Photography

Top
#42431 - 12/18/08 07:59 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: pedestrian]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: pedestrian
Putting corn to nonessential uses such as sweetener or relatively inefficient biofuel is simply a better deal than outright burning the crops used to be...


Not when those uses cause harm that cost us still more money. Then we may be better off burning the stuff.

It seems to me that the subsidy program is not designed to maintain a cushion for our food supply. It results produce not just a cushion but massive overproduction designed to support people in farm states who have two Senators and a presidential primary season that starts in Iowa.

Continuing to promote corn-based ethanol has stunted our energy policy at the expense of other more promising sources. Our agriculture exports are so cheap that African countries routinely complain that local farmers can't compete, which harms their economy and their food security, and if it harms their political security, then it poses a risk to us. And today's Kristof NY Times op-ed (referenced above) cites a recent study stating that the number of Americans with diabetes is four times what it was in 1980, and that the total direct and indirect cost to Americans is $218 billion. If higher prices for sweeteners resulted just a fraction of a cut in those numbers, it would probably cover the cost of burning the crops that helped cause it (Wikipedia says that farm subsidies averaged $16 billion/year between 1996 and 2002).

If the issue were food security, there are other ways to address it that wouldn't result in the apparently massive overproduction we have today. And I think the overproduction is massive given how much of the product must go to cattle, chickens, sodas, and exports. Surely those uses could be drastically reduced while still providing a reasonable food security cushion.

But this system isn't set up for food security; it's set up to satisfy political demands from farm states. I understand the food security argument, but it's hard for me to believe that we're not paying far more than we need to for that goal, both in terms of subsidies and the many harmful consequences of those subsidies.

Top
#42438 - 12/19/08 05:52 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: Daniel]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
This is simply NY government trying to pretend to be your doctor, while attempting to get paid at the same time.

This is a PERFECT example of where government goes beyond the basic principles put forth by the founding fathers. Its completely 100% stupid horseshit.

Top
#42439 - 12/19/08 06:14 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: Smike]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5962
Loc: 212 land
This is simply NY government trying to pretend to be your doctor, while attempting to get paid at the same time.

So you'd rather have the tax proposed without any health-based rationale to accompany it.
_________________________

Top
#42440 - 12/19/08 06:42 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: oenophore]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
 Originally Posted By: oenophore
This is simply NY government trying to pretend to be your doctor, while attempting to get paid at the same time.

So you'd rather have the tax proposed without any health-based rationale to accompany it.


The government would never get a tax like that passed under any other premise other then the health one. Which should have been the case, it should never have passed.

Top
#42441 - 12/19/08 06:57 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: Smike]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5962
Loc: 212 land
I'll agree that it's hard to imagine the First or Second US Congress accompanying imposition of taxes on spirits and tobacco with a health-based rationale. But impose these taxes they did.
_________________________

Top
#42442 - 12/19/08 07:27 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: oenophore]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
 Originally Posted By: oenophore
I'll agree that it's hard to imagine the First or Second US Congresses accompanying imposition of taxes on spirits and tobacco with a health-based rationale. But impose these taxes they did.


All those taxes mentioned, if any were enacted based on a health rationale (such as this one) they would all amount to a poor mans health tax. People with any money need not alter there diets, those that are lower on the income scale will be forced to.

Basically how can you interrupt this law as anything other then if I have money I don’t need to worry about what I drink???? Stupid stupid stupid politicians.

Top
#42443 - 12/19/08 07:58 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: Smike]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
 Originally Posted By: Smike
This is a PERFECT example of where government goes beyond the basic principles put forth by the founding fathers.


Yes I agree.

 Originally Posted By: Smike
Its completely 100% stupid horseshit.


IMO the old “rights” arguments were fine when one person didn’t affect another. Everyone had space, if something was in short supply or if you didn’t like what your neighbor did, you simply moved west.

The black and white line has been gone a long time. Should my neighbor be allowed to poison his land and water? Should he be allowed to store WMD, hunt, or play loud music…?

In our society, what each person does affect the others – and everyone should be held responsible for their actions. This goes for property rights, water use and rights, pollution…

 Originally Posted By: Smike
People with any money need not alter there diets, those that are lower on the income scale will be forced to.

Basically how can you interrupt this law as anything other then if I have money I don’t need to worry about what I drink???? Stupid stupid stupid politicians.



So, if you can’t pay for your own heath care then “we” might motivate you to stay healthy without it. If you are wealthy enough to pay the taxes then hopefully you are wealthy enough to pay for your own heath care. I wish there were a stronger link!

 Originally Posted By: Daniel
Anyway, I'd gladly agree to not taxing sugary soft drinks if we could stop subsidizing corn and let the price of those drinks reflect the true cost of the corn syrup that goes into them.


I'm often espousing this is general terms - if we paid the true cost of the goods we consume the market could and would govern them.

We'd stop taking advantage of the poor in other countries, and the governments that control them...I'm drifting (as usual).

Right now I would rather see less use of corn syrup in most packaged food. It is expensive to eat healthy in our dense society. I often choose my families food base on what I know about diet. Personally I feel very privileged to be able to afford to eat a healthy diet/ Part of that means avoiding many lower cost brands because of the sweeteners in them.


Edited by mworking (12/19/08 08:42 PM)

Top
#42444 - 12/19/08 08:44 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: Smike]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: Smike
Basically how can you interrupt this law as anything other then if I have money I don’t need to worry about what I drink????


Well, I have some sympathy for that view. Just about any consumption tax is going to have regressive effects.

But what about mandatory helmet laws, which are based on the same health premise: that changing behavior will result in an overall reduction in societal expenses (and therefore create tax savings)?

And more important, what are the alternatives to resolve the budget crisis? If it's cutting spending, what should be cut? If it's higher taxes, who should pay? I'd guess any plan will probably have to have some combination of the two.

Top
#42445 - 12/19/08 08:53 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5962
Loc: 212 land
Note that proposed taxes complained about above are upon things we really don't need.
_________________________

Top
#42451 - 12/20/08 02:20 AM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: oenophore]
empicard Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/29/01
Posts: 2954
Loc: LI, NY
 Originally Posted By: oenophore
Note that proposed taxes complained about above are upon things we really don't need.


define "Need."
And, who are you or anyone else to define what I "Need."
I FUCKING HATE RADIO. I drive to and from work.
so i download music. Am I now to be taxed because you feel I don't "Need" it? Or will it drive me to more illegal download sites and torrents?

Oh, and I sell soda for a living. Demographic I sell to doesn't give a CRAP about diet soda. I sell about 20:1 regular Vs. diet sodas. Are my sales to now suffer because you think they should have Aspertame instead of delicious sweet sugar and corn syrup?
_________________________
tOOthless

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Top
#42452 - 12/20/08 07:09 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: Daniel]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
 Originally Posted By: Daniel
 Originally Posted By: Smike
Basically how can you interrupt this law as anything other then if I have money I don’t need to worry about what I drink????


But what about mandatory helmet laws, which are based on the same health premise: that changing behavior will result in an overall reduction in societal expenses (and therefore create tax savings)?


Different story and does not apply to my argument, as that type of law does not allow opt-out with paying higher $$$. That’s a law that says, 'we think this is dangerous whether you are poor or rich'


 Originally Posted By: Daniel
And more important, what are the alternatives to resolve the budget crisis? If it's cutting spending, what should be cut? If it's higher taxes, who should pay? I'd guess any plan will probably have to have some combination of the two. )


Don't drag me into that, I'm only talking about sugar soda tax \:\/

As for Evan, I'm sure his overhead will increase some due to the increase complexity of the different tax rates now. Also the increase complexity at the state level to regulate. Most likely the increase in overhead to maintain such a tax will negate the increase in revenue IMHO.

Top
#42453 - 12/20/08 10:40 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: Smike]
RangerRob Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 06/06/00
Posts: 3764
Loc: Ulster County, NY
Evan's a pusher. I bet he even gives the kiddies their first sugary drink for free just to lure them in!!!

Psst! Yo, kid! C'mere kid, I got something for ya. You're gonna like it a lot. Go ahead...take it. You know where to come to get more, right kid?

Top
#42454 - 12/20/08 11:32 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: RangerRob]
empicard Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/29/01
Posts: 2954
Loc: LI, NY
My business is wholesale. I don't charge tax. It will however, affect my sales.
_________________________
tOOthless

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Top
#42456 - 12/21/08 03:22 AM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: Smike]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: Smike
 Originally Posted By: Daniel
 Originally Posted By: Smike
Basically how can you interrupt this law as anything other then if I have money I don’t need to worry about what I drink????


But what about mandatory helmet laws, which are based on the same health premise: that changing behavior will result in an overall reduction in societal expenses (and therefore create tax savings)?


Different story and does not apply to my argument, as that type of law does not allow opt-out with paying higher $$$. That’s a law that says, 'we think this is dangerous whether you are poor or rich'


But it still has a regressive effect. It's much easier to buy a helmet if you can afford one. So the effect of compliance on the family budget is similar. (And if you can't afford a helmet, should you have to give up your ability to bike?)

Top
#42457 - 12/21/08 04:17 AM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: Daniel]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
 Quote:
But it still has a regressive effect. It's much easier to buy a helmet if you can afford one. So the effect of compliance on the family budget is similar. (And if you can't afford a helmet, should you have to give up your ability to bike?)


ok if you go that route then if you can't afford decent tires and pass inspection should you have to give up riding your bike? Where does this end?

Ok this whole thing is silly, much more to worry about in this world. Happy Holidays all, I'm out!

Top
#42458 - 12/21/08 12:10 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: Smike]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5962
Loc: 212 land
Happy Holidays all,

Including Gov. Patterson too, Smike, despite the thread title?
_________________________

Top
#42459 - 12/21/08 02:46 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: Daniel]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4275
Loc: Poughkeepsie
 Originally Posted By: Daniel
(And if you can't afford a helmet, should you have to give up your ability to bike?)


Sadly, yes IMO. It's not like we have a constitutional RIGHT to ride a bike. Likewise with cars - I don't want the impoverished driving unregistered, uninsured, unsafe cars on the road. It's pay-to-play man, and the gov't rules exist to protect the rest of us from having to foot the bill that results when Joe "ain't got me no insurance" six-pack hurts himself/others.

Top
#42460 - 12/21/08 03:46 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: Mike Rawdon]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
 Originally Posted By: Mike Rawdon
 Originally Posted By: Daniel
(And if you can't afford a helmet, should you have to give up your ability to bike?)


...the gov't rules exist to protect the rest of us from having to foot the bill that results when Joe "ain't got me no insurance" six-pack hurts himself/others.


That reasoning is why I don’t have a problem with the idea of this particular tax under our tax system today. But I understand that just about all specific taxes have unintended results, and that everything we can think of needs to be weighed carefully while knowing that we will still have missed something.

Ideally Empicard would be reimbursed for lost business, but we know that would not happen.

In general I believe in a far simpler more efficient tax system. But that won’t happen unless we the people step up, make the hard choice and pay the large tax bill we would then receive.

Instead of putting wine and beer in grocery stores, it might be better to move cigarettes, soda and other unhealthy products into the liquor store system and tax them accordingly! Can’t say I know where to draw the line though.

Top
#42461 - 12/22/08 12:04 AM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: mworking]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
ok can we once and for all agree on this STUPID TAX LAW????

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468245,00.html

Just in case you want to pick on the fact that its a Fox news story:

http://www.healthcentral.com/diabetes/c/17/15880/trouble-diet-soda/

Top
#42463 - 12/22/08 10:54 AM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: Smike]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5962
Loc: 212 land
ok can we once and for all agree on this STUPID TAX LAW????

Why would you think these webpages promote agreement? If artificially sweetened soft drinks promote obesity, why not tax them as heavily too? If there is consensus on the definition of junk food and drink, why not tax them heavily as well?
_________________________

Top
#42465 - 12/22/08 02:59 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: oenophore]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
 Originally Posted By: oenophore
artificially sweetened soft drinks promote obesity, why not tax them as heavily too? If there is consensus on the definition of junk food and drink, why not tax them heavily as well?


That's part of what I'd like to see, but what is more important is that supposedly healthy food really be healthy. We really don’t need sugar and salt added to every darn thing you can buy! I don’t think most us us are born craving so much of either – we are conditioned to expect and like it. The second link agrees:

 Quote:
How could these non-nutritive sweeteners possibly be associated with weight gain and the metabolic syndrome? The authors of the Circulation study led by Ravi Dhingra, MD, an instructor in medicine at Harvard Medical School, think that the high level of sweetness “may lead to conditioning for a greater preference for intake of sweetened items.”


These days it is all to often not because our diet is due to food that is not cultural or local, it is because that’s what packagers and manufacturer’s can easily profit from.


I’d be glad to see it happen

Top
#42466 - 12/22/08 03:07 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: Smike]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
I don't think the articles resolve the issue. If people drinking diet soft drinks have a tendency towards gaining weight, and if it's a causal relationship, then one could argue for a tax on all sweeteners, not for just getting rid of the proposed tax on non-diet drinks. Either result would be consistent, so I'm not sure which way the articles cut.

On a more general note, I've read that weight issues are a complicated interplay of genetics and environment. On the other hand, I think it's pretty obvious that people are offered far larger portion sizes than in decades past. I find 20 oz. sodas to be too much, but that's about all one can find in vending machines and some stores these days.

I particularly enjoyed the beverage association's claim that we need to get kids exercising more. While that's probably true, it takes a whole lot of exercise to burn off calories, and it's far better never to ingest those extra calories in the first place. But I guess it's too much to expect folks to advocate responsible use of their product when there's money to be made.

Top
#42497 - 12/31/08 01:43 PM If you think Patterson's proposal is outrageous .. [Re: strat]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5962
Loc: 212 land
Kulongoski to pursue mileage tax

By Hasso Hering
Albany Democrat-Herald


A year ago, the Oregon Department of Transportation announced it had demonstrated that a new way to pay for roads — via a mileage tax and satellite technology — could work.

Now Gov. Ted Kulongoski says he’d like the legislature to take the next step.

As part of a transportation-related bill he has filed for the 2009 legislative session, the governor says he plans to recommend “a path to transition away from the gas tax as the central funding source for transportation.”

What that means is explained on the governor’s website:

“As Oregonians drive less and demand more fuel-efficient vehicles, it is increasingly important that the state find a new way, other than the gas tax, to finance our transportation system.”

According to the policies he has outlined online, Kulongoski proposes to continue the work of the special task force that came up with and tested the idea of a mileage tax to replace the gas tax.

The governor wants the task force “to partner with auto manufacturers to refine technology that would enable Oregonians to pay for the transportation system based on how many miles they drive.”

The online outline adds: “The governor is committed to ensuring that rural Oregon is not adversely affected and that privacy concerns are addressed.”

When the task force’s study and test were in the news in 2006 and 2007, critics worried that the technology could be used to track where vehicles go, not just how far they travel, and that this information would somehow be stored by the government.

In more than one interview with the Democrat-Herald and others, James Whitty, the ODOT official in charge of the project, tried to assure the public that tracking people’s travels was not in the plans.

The task force’s final report came out in November 2007. It was based largely on a field test in which about 300 motorists in the Portland area and two service stations took part over

10 months, ending in March 2007.

A GPS-based system kept track of the in-state mileage driven by the volunteers. When they bought fuel, a device in their vehicles was read, and they paid 1.2 cents a mile and got a refund of the state gas tax of 24 cents a gallon.

The final report detailed the technical aspects of the program. It also stressed the issue of privacy.

“The concept requires no transmission of vehicle travel locations, either in real time or of travel history,” the report said. “Accordingly, no travel location points are stored within the vehicle or transmitted elsewhere. Thus there can be no ‘tracking’ of vehicle movements.”

Also, the report said, under the Oregon concept of the program, “ODOT would have no involvement in developing the on-vehicle devices, installing them in vehicles, maintaining them or having any other access to them except, perhaps, in situations involving tampering or similar fee evasion activities.”

Equipment for the Oregon test was developed at Oregon State University.

Whitty said last year it might take about $20 million to establish that the mileage tax is commercially viable. Eventually, GPS devices would have to start being built into cars, and fueling stations would have to be similarly equipped.

The gas tax would stay in force — Kulongoski has proposed that it be raised 2 cents — for vehicles not equipped to pay the mileage tax.
_________________________

Top
#42498 - 12/31/08 05:45 PM Re: If you think Patterson's proposal is outrageous .. [Re: oenophore]
Ralph Offline
member

Registered: 02/01/07
Posts: 138
Way to promote fuel efficiency. Tax people more than the current rate because they're getting better gas mileage.

Top
#42499 - 12/31/08 06:05 PM Re: If you think Patterson's proposal is outrageou [Re: Ralph]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: Ralph
Way to promote fuel efficiency.


It's not about fuel efficiency. It's about paying for road upkeep and repair.

The federal government (and, apparently, Oregon) finance road projects through a gas tax. If we were able to achieve the goal of shifting to vehicles that don't use gas, what would happen to the revenue that keeps roads drivable?

The proposal is a user fee for road upkeep, not unlike toll roads, and those who use the roads more will pay more (supposedly with some offset for those in rural areas). I'm not saying whether it's a good idea or not, but I don't think it's inherently unreasonable.

Top
#42500 - 12/31/08 06:38 PM Re: If you think Patterson's proposal is outrageou [Re: Daniel]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4275
Loc: Poughkeepsie
 Originally Posted By: Daniel
 Originally Posted By: Ralph
Way to promote fuel efficiency.


It's not about fuel efficiency. It's about paying for road upkeep and repair.

The federal government (and, apparently, Oregon) finance road projects through a gas tax. If we were able to achieve the goal of shifting to vehicles that don't use gas, what would happen to the revenue that keeps roads drivable?

The proposal is a user fee for road upkeep, not unlike toll roads, and those who use the roads more will pay more (supposedly with some offset for those in rural areas). I'm not saying whether it's a good idea or not, but I don't think it's inherently unreasonable.


That (bold) would matter if there were significant numbers of non-fuel-using vehicles on the road, but that won't be the case for a long time. The gas tax *is* appropriate for road upkeep because the heavy vehicles that use the most fuel per mile are heavy, and heavy = more road wear. (No, I can't cite a reference for that, but you can't tell me that a Ford Excessive SUV doesn't bounce a bit harder than say a Honda Civic. States know this; that's why there are GVW limits on light duty roads.)

Gas tax is also better for CO2 emissions.

Gas tax doesn't require new hardware on vehicles AND at filling stations.

Gas tax doesn't threaten Big Brother ("We know where you've been driving") intrusion, even though I doubt that would ever be an issue.

Paying a mile tax and a fuel tax only to get a rebate of the latter is needless gov't overhead.

Bottom line - no reason to adopt mile tax.

Top
#42501 - 12/31/08 08:09 PM Re: If you think Patterson's proposal is outrageou [Re: Mike Rawdon]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: Mike Rawdon
The gas tax *is* appropriate for road upkeep because the heavy vehicles that use the most fuel per mile are heavy, and heavy = more road wear. (No, I can't cite a reference for that, but you can't tell me that a Ford Excessive SUV doesn't bounce a bit harder than say a Honda Civic. States know this; that's why there are GVW limits on light duty roads.)


It's also why trucks pay higher tolls on the NJ Turnpike than passenger cars. And, for now, gas efficiency probably makes a pretty good proxy for weight.

 Originally Posted By: Mike Rawdon
Gas tax is also better for CO2 emissions...


If I had an electric car, should I be exempt from road upkeep charges? (Hybrids are partly electric already, regardless of weight; electric cars for local use may not be too far away. And electric cars and other alternatives may have CO2 emissions, depending on where their fuel source is coming from.)

There are other ways of funding road projects. We could do so out of general revenues. And I'm not arguing against a gas tax; I've been a big advocate of increasing it for a multitude of reasons. And I'm not arguing that a mile tax is necessary or needed right now. I'm only suggesting that it's not inherently a bad idea.

Top
#42502 - 12/31/08 09:01 PM Re: If you think Patterson's proposal is outrageou [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5962
Loc: 212 land
I expected more outrage here, yet I'm not disappointed. The intrusive tracking of registered vehicles bothers few; the popularity of E-ZPass seems to bear that out.
I've read of a case last month in which a criminal defendant was able to establish an alibi via his Metrocard showing that he was not at the crime scene at the time led to his acquittal. So there may be something positive about such tracking.
_________________________

Top
#42506 - 01/01/09 02:32 PM Re: If you think Patterson's proposal is outrageou [Re: oenophore]
Dillbag Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/02/06
Posts: 1130
Loc: "The Town"
Why would they have to track the actual vehicles? Why not just record the mileage during a yearly inspection... And have people call in their mileage quarterly like you can do with the power/gas companies?

There, tax is there for driving amount... And no big brother!

I'm a freaking GENIUS!
_________________________
...anethum graveolens cucumis sativus!

Top
#42508 - 01/02/09 12:04 AM Re: If you think Patterson's proposal is outrageou [Re: Dillbag]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5962
Loc: 212 land
 Originally Posted By: Dillbag
Why would they have to track the actual vehicles? Why not just record the mileage during a yearly inspection... And have people call in their mileage quarterly like you can do with the power/gas companies?

There, tax is there for driving amount... And no big brother!

I'm a freaking GENIUS!
Not all an Oregonian's driving might be in that state and therefore he'd be taxed for out-of-state mileage. On the other hand, a non-Oregonian either way may drive in that state free of charge.
_________________________

Top
#42603 - 01/15/09 03:17 AM Re: If you think Patterson's proposal is outrageou [Re: oenophore]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
It's not just Oregon. From today's NY Times on how some states are considering raising their gas taxes:

"And with the advent of more fuel-efficient vehicles — including hybrids and all-electric cars that some automakers are now promising to bring to market — some states are rethinking the traditional gas tax. North Carolina and Ohio, among others, are starting to consider the concept of a tax on “vehicle miles traveled.” That system has been tried on a small pilot scale in the Portland, Ore., area, but has never been tried on a large scale."

Top
#42607 - 01/15/09 10:46 AM Re: If you think Patterson's proposal is outrageou [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5962
Loc: 212 land
Has the issue of out-of-staters driving "free" in states that charge its drivers by the mile and in-staters charged for out-of-state driving in such states been broached?
It's much like the tax situation of neighboring states Oregon and Washington. Oregon has an income tax and no sales tax. Washington has the opposite. Someone living near their border would do well taxwise to live and work in Washington, avoiding state income tax, and shop in Oregon to avoid sales tax.
_________________________

Top
#42719 - 01/21/09 05:43 PM Re: If you think Patterson's proposal is outrageou [Re: oenophore]
quanto_the_mad Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/14/02
Posts: 2628
Loc: brooklyn
Sorta. The Oregon test was, if I'm not mistaken, that tester's cars would have computers with GPS units that communicate with gas stations pumps. The pumps would charge those drivers with tax depending on mileage driven in-state. Everyone else would get taxed the standard rate.

Cross-state drivers would be charged tax only if they filled up in state, so out of state hybrid drivers are still a problem. Hackers were another problem, as was faulty devices that didn't properly communicate with the pumps.

There are still a lot of kinks to work out.
_________________________


Top
#43127 - 02/18/09 11:12 AM Not just in Oregon [Re: quanto_the_mad]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5962
Loc: 212 land


Massachusetts may consider a mileage charge
By GLEN JOHNSON

BOSTON (AP) A tentative plan to overhaul Massachusetts' transportation system by using GPS chips to charge motorists a quarter-cent for every mile behind the wheel has angered some drivers.

"It's outrageous, it's kind of Orwellian, Big Brotherish," said Sen. Scott Brown, R-Wrentham, who drafted legislation last week to prohibit the practice. "You'd need a whole new department of cronies just to keep track of it."

But a "Vehicle Miles Traveled" program like the one the governor may unveil this week has already been tested with positive results in Oregon.

Governors in Idaho and Rhode Island, as well as the federal government, also are talking about such programs. And in North Carolina, a panel suggested in December the state start charging motorists a quarter-cent for every mile as a substitute for the gas tax.

"The Big Brother issue was identified during the first meeting of the task force that developed our program," said Jim Whitty, who oversees innovation projects for the Oregon Department of Transportation. "Everything we did from that point forward, even though we used electronics, was to eliminate those concerns."

A draft overhaul transport plan prepared for Gov. Deval Patrick says implementing a Vehicle Miles Traveled system to replace the gas tax makes sense. "A user-based system, collected electronically, is a fair way to pay for our transportation needs in the future," it says.

Patrick, who had yet to settle on any of the ideas contained in the draft, told reporters last week, "I like any idea that is faster, cheaper, simpler."

The idea behind the program is simple: As cars become more fuel efficient or powered by electricity, gas tax revenues decline. Yet the cost of building and maintaining roads and bridges is increasing. A state could cover that gap by charging drivers precisely for the mileage their vehicles put on public roads.

"There needs to be a new way of thinking about, `How do we pay for all of this?'" said Richard Dimino, president of A Better City, a business-friendly group that considers transportation issues.

"One of the ways is thinking about the automobile like a utility: When we turn on our automobile and use it, we would be charged like we do when we turn on the lights and we start using electricity."

In Oregon, the state paid volunteers who let the transportation department install GPS receivers in 300 vehicles. The device did not transmit a signal which would allow real-time tracking of a driver's movements but instead passively received satellite pings telling the receiver where it was in terms of latitude and longitude coordinates.

The state used those coordinates to determine when the vehicle was driving both within Oregon and outside the state. And it measured the respective distances through a connection with the vehicle's odometer.

When a driver pulled into a predetermined service station, the pump linked electronically with the receiver, downloaded the number of miles driven in Oregon and then charged the driver a fee based on the distance. The gas tax they would have paid was reduced by the amount of the user fee. Drivers continued to be charged gas tax for miles driven outside Oregon.

Under such systems, one of which is already used in London, drivers are charged more for entering a crowded area during rush hour than off-peak periods.

"What the mileage charge does, if it's structured properly, is simply charge for the basic responsibility of people to pay for the amount of wear they put on the state's roads," said Whitty, whose state is still considering the mechanics of broadening the program.
_________________________

Top
#44142 - 04/13/09 02:44 AM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: strat]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Here's a well written article from Slate on the soda tax.

Top
#44144 - 04/13/09 10:11 AM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Paterson [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5962
Loc: 212 land
The points in that article are interesting. The taxed item is said to be harmful, hence a tax will diminish consumption. Yet an increase in tax will increase revenue. This may be true for something addicting like cigarettes. The cigarette smoker can save money by buying a roll-it-yourself cigarette kit, yet I think few do so. Similarly, one can create one's own carbonated beverages, yet I suspect few will do so even if the commercial stuff is heavily taxed.
I'd like to see stevia permitted in commercial food and beverages. The sugar and artificial sweetener lobbies have influenced the FDA to ban it as an additive.

(And stickler that I am, I just had to correct the spelling of the autocopulating governor's name.)
_________________________

Top
#44579 - 05/13/09 03:53 PM Soda tax? Here we go again [Re: empicard]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5962
Loc: 212 land
Oh, and I sell soda for a living. Demographic I sell to doesn't give a CRAP about diet soda. I sell about 20:1 regular Vs. diet sodas. Are my sales to now suffer because you think they should have Aspertame instead of delicious sweet sugar and corn syrup?

Read it and groan.
_________________________

Top
#44630 - 05/14/09 06:45 PM Re: Soda tax? Here we go again [Re: oenophore]
empicard Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/29/01
Posts: 2954
Loc: LI, NY
well, good thing my partner was a thief and i shut down the business....
_________________________
tOOthless

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Top
#44634 - 05/14/09 07:16 PM Is the auto-f suggestion transferable? [Re: empicard]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5962
Loc: 212 land
So Strat, is the suggestion made to Gov. Paterson also to be made to the Senate Finance Committee, the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Congressional Budget Office?
_________________________

Top
#44733 - 05/16/09 05:28 PM Re: Soda tax? Here we go again [Re: oenophore]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
If one believes Stephen Colbert, the proposed federal tax is one-quarter of a cent per ounce. So if you go to the movie theater and spend $3.50 for a 20 ounce Coke, the tax would raise the price to $3.55. "And for what? Some poor woman's pre-natal check-ups?"

(Granted, one rarely pays $3.50 for 20 ounces outside of a movie theater.)

Top
#44734 - 05/16/09 09:02 PM Re: Soda tax? Here we go again [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5962
Loc: 212 land
One needn't trust Mr. Colbert on this. From the website I cited above:

The office (CBO) estimated that adding a tax of three cents per 12-ounce serving to these types of sweetened drinks would generate $24 billion over the next four years.
_________________________

Top
#44735 - 05/16/09 10:31 PM Re: Soda tax? Here we go again [Re: oenophore]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Originally Posted By: oenophore
One needn't trust Mr. Colbert on this. From the website I cited above:

The office (CBO) estimated that adding a tax of three cents per 12-ounce serving to these types of sweetened drinks would generate $24 billion over the next four years.


Therein lies one of our food problems these days. I often look for a 12-oz serving (a can) at some establishments, and all they have are 20 oz. bottles. That's more soda than I want, but frequently that's all there is to buy. And once you buy food/drink, the tendency is to finish what's in front of you. Are people just getting used to larger portion sizes as their standard? (Anyone else remember those small Coke bottles? What were they, 8 ounces?)

How anyone can finish a 32 oz Big Gulp (or the equivalent) is beyond me, yet I see kids with them here in the city. And that's 310 calories right there.

Not that I'm endorsing the proposed tax, by the way. It seems to be sufficient to generate significant revenue without affecting behavior. I'm agnostic as to whether having it low enough to not significantly affect behavior is good or not; my libertarian and my "My God, how can anyone buy a 32-oz soda?" sides are conflicted.

Top
#44736 - 05/16/09 10:46 PM Re: Soda tax? Here we go again [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5962
Loc: 212 land
I can't understand a libertarian issue in this context unless one abhors all manner of tax. Such excise taxation is well within Congress's delegated powers. Since I don't drink such stuff, I'd approve such taxation.
As for polishing off of a quart of soda, I recall a time a couple of years ago after a summer hike in the Mule Mtns. in Arizona foolishly without taking water with me, I barely made it back to the car. At a nearby 7-11 type gas station/junk food emporium, I poured myself and quickly drank two consecutive 46oz cups of diet cola.
_________________________

Top
#44743 - 05/17/09 02:36 PM Re: Soda tax? Here we go again [Re: oenophore]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
I think there's a pretty clear libertarian issue: a tax based on behavior interferes with an individual's ability to freely choose that behavior, and libertarians believe that government should generally let people make their own decisions. If people want to smoke, they should be allowed to smoke without being subjected to an additional tax--or drink, or go rock climbing for that matter (should we tax climbing gear to discourage people from engaging in "inherently dangerous" activity?). As someone once suggested to me, what's next: a tax on eggs since they're bad for your circulatory system?

Or, if the tax is low enough so that it doesn't interfere with behavior, then why shouldn't it be more broadly based so that we all help pick up the tab, and not only one subsection of society?

As for polishing off a liter of soda, I think the longest hike the kids I see the kids taking are the few blocks from school to the fast food outlet.

Top
#44746 - 05/17/09 04:37 PM Re: Soda tax? Here we go again [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5962
Loc: 212 land
If people want to smoke, they should be allowed to smoke without being subjected to an additional tax--or drink

In the early days of our republic, federal excise tax on tobacco and spirits comprised nearly all of the nation's internal revenue.

Or, if the tax is low enough so that it doesn't interfere with behavior, then why shouldn't it be more broadly based so that we all help pick up the tab, and not only one subsection of society?

This seems like an argument for a flat income tax or the so-called fair tax (across the board national sales tax.)
_________________________

Top
#44747 - 05/17/09 09:14 PM Re: Soda tax? Here we go again [Re: oenophore]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Originally Posted By: oenophore
In the early days of our republic, federal excise tax on tobacco and spirits comprised nearly all of the nation's internal revenue.


Well, then they weren't modern libertarians. That doesn't mean that there isn't an issue about the government and its relationship to personal freedoms.

Originally Posted By: oenophore
Or, if the tax is low enough so that it doesn't interfere with behavior, then why shouldn't it be more broadly based so that we all help pick up the tab, and not only one subsection of society?

This seems like an argument for a flat income tax or the so-called fair tax (across the board national sales tax.)


Not at all. We can all help pick up the tab, but in a progressive manner. Broad-based does not mean flat; it just means that everyone (or everyone above a certain minimum threshold) should contribute something.

And I think that's a key problem with our politics today. It's too easy to be in favor of something (like expanding health insurance for children, or wars) as long as someone else picks up the tab (like smokers, or the next generation of taxpayers). Government is supposed to be the means by which we tax ourselves for the programs we say we want. If we're not willing to contribute, maybe we should admit we don't think the goal is that important. But we can't have it both ways indefinitely. (And that goes for tax cuts without giving up programs, too.)

Top
#44754 - 05/18/09 02:20 PM Re: Soda tax? Here we go again [Re: Daniel]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
Tax on sugar? Just like a tax on TEA.

Top
#53035 - 06/29/10 05:05 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Paterson [Re: alicex4]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5962
Loc: 212 land
Given the current game of budget chicken between Gov. Paterson and the State Legislature, it's time to revive this thread. Whose side are you on here?
_________________________

Top
#56629 - 02/01/11 09:02 PM Re: Go F Yourself Governor Patterson [Re: Smike]
oenophore Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5962
Loc: 212 land
government goes beyond the basic principles put forth by the founding fathers

And what are these basic principles?


Top
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored