PDA

View Full Version : Universal Gas Care


Taco John
03-31-2008, 11:32 PM
It dawns on me that gas is getting expensive. This is very unfair to poor people. What kind of society allows only the rich to drive the streets? Justice must be done.

My proposal is simple: a universal gas card that everybody has to carry around in order to buy gas. When you go to the pump, you are required to put in your gas card. On that gas card is information about you that will access the central database which will contain your tax returns. Your gas prices will be based on which tax bracket you are in. Once the machine has verified your gas card and got your tax bracket, a wireless RFID transmittor in the pumping station will do a wireless sweep of the area for your RFID-enabled National ID card. It will simultaneously sweep for your vehicle. Once the computer approves the transaction, you are now welcome to do business and purchase gas at the price that is available to you.

Everybody wins. Poor people get gas. Rich people pay for most of it. Justice and equality for all.

Taco John
04-01-2008, 12:00 AM
Seriously. We live in a black top society. Roads equal commerce. Commerce equals jobs. Nationalizing the fuel distribution system in the country is our only hope of keeping the economy moving. What happens when poor people cant afford to go to work? If we don't nationalize the fuel distribution system soon, our country is in danger of facing another great depression.

If we want to save the economy and maintain an equitable system of distribution of fuel, we must expel the free market distribution system that we have (that is clearly failing), and turn the system over to a centralized authority that will be able to plan and equitably distribute the fuel.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-01-2008, 12:03 AM
:spock:

a1na2
04-01-2008, 12:09 AM
Take from the rich and give to the poor?

You need to get your head out of your ass.

That is the one most stupid post I've ever seen you make.

I saw your posts about the U.S. bombing the WTC with mini-nukes, this tops that one for stupidity.

I would like to apologize to all of the stupid people in the world for comparing you to TJ here. You don't deserve that kind of slam.

Taco John
04-01-2008, 12:15 AM
Take from the rich and give to the poor?

You need to get your head out of your ass.

That is the one most stupid post I've ever seen you make.

I saw your posts about the U.S. bombing the WTC with mini-nukes, this tops that one for stupidity.

I would like to apologize to all of the stupid people in the world for comparing you to TJ here. You don't deserve that kind of slam.


What are you going to do when poor people can no longer afford to drive their cars to work Tom? Let them sit in their houses and starve? The world has changed. It's time for our government to adjust to those changes in order to meet the needs of the general welfare of American citizens. Who better to deal with the robber barons of the inequitable oil industry than our government? It's time we put up a unified front against these bandits.

a1na2
04-01-2008, 12:28 AM
What are you going to do when poor people can no longer afford to drive their cars to work Tom? Let them sit in their houses and starve? The world has changed. It's time for our government to adjust to those changes in order to meet the needs of the general welfare of American citizens. Who better to deal with the robber barons of the inequitable oil industry than our government? It's time we put up a unified front against these bandits.

How many poor people do you even know? I live in a town that has it's share of those that are on the lower end of the scale. Many of them have SUV's for Christs sake. If they can't afford gas they might consider trading down. Those that aren't driving SUV's have muscle cars. Big block V8's. Let them work that issue first.

I walk a mile and a half each way to work most days. I don't expect you to understand that your proposal is stupid, you have a blind eye for that. The poorest people do not work anyway, they are living off welfare. Already using the money we all pay in taxes.

When you are not making decent money you adjust your life style to do what you have to do to get by. When I was out of work for 18 months in the early 90's there was nobody offering to buy my gas so I could search for work, if I needed to take a trip for an interview we had to cut corners to so we had the money for gas. That was in the days when gas was cheap compared to now.

You idea of socialism is not what the country needs. If you want the poor to pay less in gas you do like they are doing now in other areas, subsidize them. It took me 25 years to get to the level of management that I'm currently working. I had to bust my ass to get here. Let them bust their ass and earn what they need. Those that sincerely want to do better work at it, those that don't you can support if you like.

Also, I donate to charities to help the poor. If I'm burdened with higher gas prices what do you think I'm going to cut out to pay for my gas?

Guru
04-01-2008, 12:37 AM
Yeah, everything is the fault of the rich so they should have to pay for everyone else.

God forbid that they just had good business sense and did something remarkable.

ClevelandBronco
04-01-2008, 12:46 AM
I'm worried about the ability of corporations to withstand the increased wage and salary demands that labor will no doubt try to lay upon the doorstep of management.

One possible solution would be to offer corporations a tax incentive if they agreed to subsidize their employees' fuel costs for commuting. Another would be to offer an equal tax incentive if they allowed their employees to work from home.

Perhaps the best plan would be to award federal tax incentives to every corporation that supported any employee's individual decision to commute or work from home.

Jenson71
04-01-2008, 12:47 AM
Oh please people,

Taco is mocking the idea of universal health care. Don't you get it?

It's amusing to see taco john's biggest stalker, a1na2, display such poor comprehension. Also, two days ago, a1na2 said that I had "the most stupid post" he's ever seen. Today, taco writes "the most stupid post" post he's seen from him. I get a kick out of that, as well.

ClevelandBronco
04-01-2008, 12:49 AM
Delete.

RedThat
04-01-2008, 12:52 AM
It dawns on me that gas is getting expensive. This is very unfair to poor people. What kind of society allows only the rich to drive the streets? Justice must be done.

My proposal is simple: a universal gas card that everybody has to carry around in order to buy gas. When you go to the pump, you are required to put in your gas card. On that gas card is information about you that will access the central database which will contain your tax returns. Your gas prices will be based on which tax bracket you are in. Once the machine has verified your gas card and got your tax bracket, a wireless RFID transmittor in the pumping station will do a wireless sweep of the area for your RFID-enabled National ID card. It will simultaneously sweep for your vehicle. Once the computer approves the transaction, you are now welcome to do business and purchase gas at the price that is available to you.

Everybody wins. Poor people get gas. Rich people pay for most of it. Justice and equality for all.

Do you really think that would work?

I mean this is very thoughtful of you, but I just don't think it's realistic. The Oil companies don't care. Rich, middle class, or poor don't matter?

Plus, I don't think that would be a good idea because you would probably see a lot of jealousy going around between people.

Taco John
04-01-2008, 12:52 AM
Yeah, everything is the fault of the rich so they should have to pay for everyone else.

God forbid that they just had good business sense and did something remarkable.


The rich are getting their cut too. Are they not benefitting from this program when a poor person fills their tank with gas and goes to work for them? Would the rich not be hurt if that poor person couldn't afford to purchase gas any longer and was forced to stay home?

We live in a society, and if we want to have the type of society that all Americans say they want, then small sacrifices are going to have to be made. Maybe a rich guy or two will have to forgo the purchase of that ivory back scratcher that they had their eye on.

ClevelandBronco
04-01-2008, 12:58 AM
The rich are getting their cut too. Are they not benefitting from this program when a poor person fills their tank with gas and goes to work for them? Would the rich not be hurt if that poor person couldn't afford to purchase gas any longer and was forced to stay home?

We live in a society, and if we want to have the type of society that all Americans say they want, then small sacrifices are going to have to be made. Maybe a rich guy or two will have to forgo the purchase of that ivory back scratcher that they had their eye on.

I still say that we should raise the gas tax, rebate that increase directly to employers and permit them to pass the rebates back to their employees in the form of gas allowances (or stay at home allowances if employees still can't afford to go to work on a regular basis.)

Logical
04-01-2008, 01:01 AM
Seriously. We live in a black top society. Roads equal commerce. Commerce equals jobs. Nationalizing the fuel distribution system in the country is our only hope of keeping the economy moving. What happens when poor people cant afford to go to work? If we don't nationalize the fuel distribution system soon, our country is in danger of facing another great depression.

If we want to save the economy and maintain an equitable system of distribution of fuel, we must expel the free market distribution system that we have (that is clearly failing), and turn the system over to a centralized authority that will be able to plan and equitably distribute the fuel.You are actually starting to convince me, impressive reasoning.

Taco John
04-01-2008, 01:03 AM
I still say that we should raise the gas tax, rebate that increase directly to employers and permit them to pass the rebates back to their employees in the form of gas allowances (or stay at home allowances if employees still can't afford to go to work on a regular basis.)

You're giving too much control to corporate executives. That's the recipe for corruption. People in business are accountable to who? Their bottom line, that's who. Government is accountable to we the people. In business, its always best to eliminate the middle man. So should it be for government. There's no need to put that carrot stick of corruption out there for the white collar sector when we can set up the system centrally, and manage the entire thing through the Real ID system.

Taco John
04-01-2008, 01:06 AM
You are actually starting to convince me, impressive reasoning.

Oil is the life blood of this nation. It's too critical to our economy to leave it up to the free market. That kind of social darwinism is going to do nothing but leave poor people in the dust, while the rich get richer.

It only makes sense to nationalize the blood stream of our nation.

ClevelandBronco
04-01-2008, 01:11 AM
You're giving too much control to corporate executives. That's the recipe for corruption. People in business are accountable to who? Their bottom line, that's who. Government is accountable to we the people. In business, its always best to eliminate the middle man. So should it be for government. There's no need to put that carrot stick of corruption out there for the white collar sector when we can set up the system centrally, and manage the entire thing through the Real ID system.

Interesting point. We could raise the gas tax by X% and then rebate that revenue directly back to the taxpayers without involving a third party that might not be trusted to return the money to the people.

Is it safe to assume that the rebate would have to take the form of a tax credit rather than a tax deduction (in the case of an annual calculation), or do you think that the rebate should most fairly be returned at the time of purchase?

Taco John
04-01-2008, 01:22 AM
Interesting point. We could raise the gas tax by X% and then rebate that revenue directly back to the taxpayers without involving a third party that might not be trusted to return the money to the people.

Is it safe to assume that the rebate would have to take the form of a tax credit rather than a tax deduction (in the case of an annual calculation), or do you think that the rebate should most fairly be returned at the time of purchase?

I think you have to give the rebate to the people at the time of purchase, but I am not averse to the idea that the money is returned at the end of the year in the form of a deduction. Technology being where it is, we could have itemized gas receipts sent at the end of the year. Also, by collecting this money up front, the government is able to use it in the event of an emergency.

What's important is the security of the blood stream of America and ensuring that poor people have the same access to this resource as a rich person.

Taco John
04-01-2008, 01:30 AM
Do you really think that would work?

I mean this is very thoughtful of you, but I just don't think it's realistic. The Oil companies don't care. Rich, middle class, or poor don't matter?

Plus, I don't think that would be a good idea because you would probably see a lot of jealousy going around between people.


In this day and age, Gas is a necessity. Leaving it up to the free market is not an option in today's world. Everybody needs gas. Not having fair access to gas puts a person at a serious disadvantage to the elite. Just like with the body, when blood doesn't flow to a particular portion - that portion dies.


Nationalization is the only solution to ensure a just and equitable distribution of this critical resource.

ClevelandBronco
04-01-2008, 01:35 AM
I think you have to give the rebate to the people at the time of purchase, but I am not averse to the idea that the money is returned at the end of the year in the form of a deduction. Technology being where it is, we could have itemized gas receipts sent at the end of the year. Also, by collecting this money up front, the government is able to use it in the event of an emergency.

What's important is the security of the blood stream of America and ensuring that poor people have the same access to this resource as a rich person.

I like this idea, but I'd support the two following measures to help ensure the kind of fairness and equality that would favor the people who most deserve it.

1. Phase out the rebate for anyone who makes too much money.

2. Use the revenues saved from the above measure to fund a Gasoline Security Trust Fund that would ensure that seniors would have access to fuel in their later years.

Mr. Flopnuts
04-01-2008, 01:57 AM
How many poor people do you even know? I live in a town that has it's share of those that are on the lower end of the scale. Many of them have SUV's for Christs sake. If they can't afford gas they might consider trading down. Those that aren't driving SUV's have muscle cars. Big block V8's. Let them work that issue first.



Did it ever occur to you that the value of SUV's is so low right now that the poorest of the poor are upside down in them with their 29% interest rates? So now, they pay twice as much in gas as their payments are, then factor in insurance. I think you get the point. When half of your disposable income or MORE is being dedicated to transportation, at some point something's got to give. I'm glad Taco is bringing this to your attention, but it's nothing new for anyone living paycheck to paycheck.

ClevelandBronco
04-01-2008, 02:03 AM
Did it ever occur to you that the value of SUV's is so low right now that the poorest of the poor are upside down in them with their 29% interest rates? So now, they pay twice as much in gas as their payments are, then factor in insurance. I think you get the point. When half of your disposable income or MORE is being dedicated to transportation, at some point something's got to give. I'm glad Taco is bringing this to your attention, but it's nothing new for anyone living paycheck to paycheck.

But if the government steps in NOW we'll be able to live paycheck to rebate to paycheck. That would have to take some of the pressure off.

Mr. Flopnuts
04-01-2008, 02:07 AM
But if the government steps in NOW we'll be able to live paycheck to rebate to paycheck. That would have to take some of the pressure off.

I don't really buy that. The only real solution I see is subsidation. Like Venezuela, wait, they're communist.......Somebody else. Anybody else.

Taco John
04-01-2008, 02:08 AM
If we nationalized the fuel system of America, everyone would share in the burden of cost equally, rich or poor, according to how much "blood" they are sucking out of the system by way of Income. Suddenly, the cost of gas would be balanced because we'd all be taking on our fair share of the load. The rich/poor imbalance would iron itself out of the system. Think of it: suddenly a poor single mother is paying 90 cents a gallon, and is able to free up some of her money for other needs. The rich person who is making up for that cost is hardly missing it.

And as a nation, if we nationalized our purchasing power, WE could practically dictate to the market what we'd pay for it. Everyone would benefit!

Mr. Flopnuts
04-01-2008, 02:13 AM
I absolutely think it needs to be regulated. Sorry, I'm not for big government, but this is 2008. We absoultely NEED gas. We do it for phone service, and cable service, don't tell me it doesn't make sense to do it with something so essential to our day to day survival.

HolmeZz
04-01-2008, 02:29 AM
The health care argument is usually a moral one, at least a main component of it is. There's no moral equivalency.

a1na2
04-01-2008, 02:34 AM
Did it ever occur to you that the value of SUV's is so low right now that the poorest of the poor are upside down in them with their 29% interest rates? So now, they pay twice as much in gas as their payments are, then factor in insurance. I think you get the point. When half of your disposable income or MORE is being dedicated to transportation, at some point something's got to give. I'm glad Taco is bringing this to your attention, but it's nothing new for anyone living paycheck to paycheck.

When someone on welfare can buy a new SUV I don't think they are hurting for money, they are hurting for common sense. Taco isn't bringing anything to my attention, he is bringing this up because he is an attention whore.

a1na2
04-01-2008, 02:35 AM
If we nationalized the fuel system of America, everyone would share in the burden of cost equally, rich or poor, according to how much "blood" they are sucking out of the system by way of Income. Suddenly, the cost of gas would be balanced because we'd all be taking on our fair share of the load. The rich/poor imbalance would iron itself out of the system. Think of it: suddenly a poor single mother is paying 90 cents a gallon, and is able to free up some of her money for other needs. The rich person who is making up for that cost is hardly missing it.

And as a nation, if we nationalized our purchasing power, WE could practically dictate to the market what we'd pay for it. Everyone would benefit!

Another stupid post.

Taco John
04-01-2008, 02:39 AM
Because Oil = Health Care.


If a poor person can't afford to drive to the hospital, then what good would universal healthcare be to him? If a poor person can't afford drive to their job, then how do you think the health of the economy would be?

How will hospitals be able to stock medical supplies if truckers can no longer afford to ship the medical supplies that they need in order to keep people healthy?

Don't sarcastically tell me "Because Oil = Health Care." How many seniors are you willing to let die in their homes because the blood pressure medication that they are relying on is stuck in Boardman, Oregon because the truck company who was supposed to deliver them cant afford the fuel for their fleet. How many seniors are going to be stuck eating dog food because the costs of food have sky-rocketed so dramatically due to gas shortages?

Oil = Health of the nation

a1na2
04-01-2008, 02:54 AM
If a poor person can't afford to drive to the hospital, then what good would universal healthcare be to him? If a poor person can't afford drive to their job, then how do you think the health of the economy would be?

How will hospitals be able to stock medical supplies if truckers can no longer afford to ship the medical supplies that they need in order to keep people healthy?

Don't sarcastically tell me "Because Oil = Health Care." How many seniors are you willing to let die in their homes because the blood pressure medication that they are relying on is stuck in Boardman, Oregon because the truck company who was supposed to deliver them cant afford the fuel for their fleet. How many seniors are going to be stuck eating dog food because the costs of food have sky-rocketed so dramatically due to gas shortages?

Oil = Health of the nation

Stupidity reigns tonight.

Trucking companies are not going to be able to pay for fuel to drive their routes? Do you even have a clue as to how stupid you are for even broaching that? Fuel costs are served up to the consumer, in the case of seniors on medication, the welfare system, and thusly to you in taxes.

Your plan sucks.

HolmeZz
04-01-2008, 03:06 AM
If a poor person can't afford to drive to the hospital, then what good would universal healthcare be to him? If a poor person can't afford drive to their job, then how do you think the health of the economy would be?

How will hospitals be able to stock medical supplies if truckers can no longer afford to ship the medical supplies that they need in order to keep people healthy?

Don't sarcastically tell me "Because Oil = Health Care." How many seniors are you willing to let die in their homes because the blood pressure medication that they are relying on is stuck in Boardman, Oregon because the truck company who was supposed to deliver them cant afford the fuel for their fleet. How many seniors are going to be stuck eating dog food because the costs of food have sky-rocketed so dramatically due to gas shortages?

Oil = Health of the nation

I'm never on board with Tom, but you're off the deep-end on this.

Anyway, I had edited my original post to directly reflect my point about morality. There's a moral argument that is made about health care. Oil is a luxury. You might as well be arguing that everyone deserves a Benz.

Taco John
04-01-2008, 03:45 AM
Trucking companies are not going to be able to pay for fuel to drive their routes? Do you even have a clue as to how stupid you are for even broaching that? Fuel costs are served up to the consumer, in the case of seniors on medication, the welfare system, and thusly to you in taxes.



You clearly don't keep up with the news... (http://www.wsmv.com/money/15749952/detail.html?rss=nash&psp=news)

We are nearing a crisis. We can nationalize our fuel system before the crisis hits, or after it. It's not a matter of if. It's a matter of when.

Taco John
04-01-2008, 03:54 AM
I'm never on board with Tom, but you're off the deep-end on this.

Anyway, I had edited my original post to directly reflect my point about morality. There's a moral argument that is made about health care. Oil is a luxury. You might as well be arguing that everyone deserves a Benz.


I don't see how arguing for a Benz and arguing for equitable distribution of fuel are equivalents. If a person goes without a Mercedes Benz, and instead buys a Rabbit, they're still able to get milk from the grocery store five miles away from their house... If they have the gas to get there, that is. How is gas a luxury for this person? Is it a luxury for their kids? How is their kids going without meals because their parents cant afford to drive into town to buy groceries not a moral argument?

How is oil a luxury in today's economy? Those who have the means to buy gas get the luxury of having a job / buying groceries? How does that equate with your moral argument about health care? Doesn't that go something like "those who have the means to pay for quality health care, get the luxury of having it?" I don't see the moral difference. In fact, I'd argue that healthcare is more of a luxury than gas. I know plenty of people who have gone as long as a decade without so much as calling a doctor. How many of them do you think went without gas for a decade?

Ask a trucker with a family to feed whether he thinks gas is a luxury.

Taco John
04-01-2008, 04:04 AM
If you have no gas, you have no prospects for a living wage. Could anyone possibly disagree with this statement?

For the health, security, and general welfare of this nation, we must nationalize our gas distribution system and come up with something much more equitable than what we have today.

patteeu
04-01-2008, 07:09 AM
The rich are getting their cut too. Are they not benefitting from this program when a poor person fills their tank with gas and goes to work for them? Would the rich not be hurt if that poor person couldn't afford to purchase gas any longer and was forced to stay home?

We live in a society, and if we want to have the type of society that all Americans say they want, then small sacrifices are going to have to be made. Maybe a rich guy or two will have to forgo the purchase of that ivory back scratcher that they had their eye on.

Personally, I won't be completely satisfied until I see poor people pulling each other to work in rickshaws.

Amnorix
04-01-2008, 07:40 AM
TJ -- you're being ridiculous.

Everyone else -- he's being sarcastic. Oy.

damaticous
04-01-2008, 08:04 AM
What are you going to do when poor people can no longer afford to drive their cars to work Tom? Let them sit in their houses and starve? The world has changed. It's time for our government to adjust to those changes in order to meet the needs of the general welfare of American citizens. Who better to deal with the robber barons of the inequitable oil industry than our government? It's time we put up a unified front against these bandits.


If you can't afford to drive do what they do in other countries. Buy a bike. their cheap to buy, maintain, and operate.

Period. Thread over.

Amnorix
04-01-2008, 08:21 AM
Call it April Fools Day or whatever you want, but TJ is not seriously advocating this...

Amnorix
04-01-2008, 08:27 AM
You are actually starting to convince me, impressive reasoning.

:banghead:

Otter
04-01-2008, 09:06 AM
:banghead:

ROFL

Not much of an eye for satire?

BucEyedPea
04-01-2008, 09:59 AM
RedBull Taco is being facetious.

I can't believe Cleveland Bronco's posts as a conservative and a Republican. That's just another form of nationalization.

We are trying to nationalize a lot of things right now—not just healthcare. Now gas? Through centrally controlled credits and tax incentives, the indirect approach.( fascism) Or the restribution approach. This sounds like a lead up to nationalization of transportation. I hope there's no such plan but one never knows. It would add up to more control of the govt over our lives to solve problems the market will do better. And if it doesn't we keep our liberty.

But wtf is happening to conservatives? Shame on you!

chiefforlife
04-01-2008, 10:01 AM
Personally, I won't be completely satisfied until I see poor people pulling each other to work in rickshaws.

I too, like this idea. We could take it a step further and add another benefit by using fat, poor people.

BucEyedPea
04-01-2008, 10:08 AM
I too, like this idea. We could take it a step further and add another benefit by using fat, poor people.

Careful we have a lot of poor people on this board!

Cave Johnson
04-01-2008, 10:12 AM
I'm worried about the ability of corporations to withstand the increased wage and salary demands that labor will no doubt try to lay upon the doorstep of management.

True, how would corporations have the money for increased wages?

"U.S. corporate profits have increased 21.3% in the past year and now account for the largest share of national income in 40 years, the Commerce Department said Thursday.

Strong productivity gains and subdued wage growth boosted before-tax profits to 11.6% of national income in the fourth quarter of 2005, the biggest share since the summer of 1966.

For all of 2005, before-tax profits totaled $1.35 trillion, up from $1.16 trillion in 2004 and just $767 billion in 2001.

Meanwhile, the share of national income going to wage and salary workers has fallen to 56.9%. Except for a brief period in 1997, that's the lowest share for labor income since 1966."

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7BC4257910-8351-437A-8C00-E4CF3B782091%7D&siteid=mktw&dist

Amnorix
04-01-2008, 10:18 AM
ROFL

Not much of an eye for satire?


I caught TJ's sarcasm, which many seemingly didn't, unless they were playing him along too. Was Vlad also playing the sarcasm card?

patteeu
04-01-2008, 10:30 AM
RedBull Taco is being facetious.

I can't believe Cleveland Bronco's posts as a conservative and a Republican. That's just another form of nationalization.

We are trying to nationalize a lot of things right now—not just healthcare. Now gas? Through centrally controlled credits and tax incentives, the indirect approach.( fascism) Or the restribution approach. This sounds like a lead up to nationalization of transportation. I hope there's no such plan but one never knows. It would add up to more control of the govt over our lives to solve problems the market will do better. And if it doesn't we keep our liberty.

But wtf is happening to conservatives? Shame on you!

BucEyedPea ClevelandBronco is being facetious too.

BucEyedPea
04-01-2008, 10:37 AM
Well, it didn't appear that way. But you could be right. :doh!:

patteeu
04-01-2008, 10:43 AM
Well, it didn't appear that way. But you could be right. :doh!:

I think there's a lot of confusion in this thread. In that sense, Taco was supremely successful!

But just to be clear, I really do want to see poor people pulling rickshaws. ;)

BucEyedPea
04-01-2008, 10:45 AM
like I said, careful, we have lots of poor people on this board.

patteeu
04-01-2008, 10:50 AM
like I said, careful, we have lots of poor people on this board.

Rep to the first one who posts a picture of themselves pulling a rickshaw!

Taco John
04-01-2008, 11:01 AM
Personally, I won't be completely satisfied until I see poor people pulling each other to work in rickshaws.


Don't you think that it's insensitive, and maybe even racist to force our poorest among us to do such demeaning labor?

The bottom line is that gas is just as essential in our economy as bread is. If we don't give poor people the same access to this precious resource as the elites have, what does that say about us?

Taco John
04-01-2008, 11:07 AM
Rep to the first one who posts a picture of themselves pulling a rickshaw!


You know, that sounds like a good way to get in shape and make a few bucks on a weekend. I wonder how much cash I could pull in on Rickshaw duty in Portland. Hell, I wonder how much I could pull in if I had a fleet of Rickshaws? They're novel! People would love 'em going from bar to bar. Or even during the day when rich people are shopping.

Otter
04-01-2008, 11:07 AM
I caught TJ's sarcasm, which many seemingly didn't, unless they were playing him along too. Was Vlad also playing the sarcasm card?

I don't think so, that's what my post was referring. I just found the headbang reaction humorous.

mlyonsd
04-01-2008, 11:19 AM
You know, that sounds like a good way to get in shape and make a few bucks on a weekend. I wonder how much cash I could pull in on Rickshaw duty in Portland. Hell, I wonder how much I could pull in if I had a fleet of Rickshaws? They're novel! People would love 'em going from bar to bar. Or even during the day when rich people are shopping.

Kramer and Newman already tried that and failed. But seeing as the price of gas is a lot higher now you might be onto something.

plbrdude
04-01-2008, 11:46 AM
i have given consideration to getting a couple horses and a wagon to work out of. it might make it tough to take out of calls though.

plbrdude
04-01-2008, 11:52 AM
btw, how much does it cost to feed horses? maybe i'll be better off to keep driving.

chasedude
04-01-2008, 11:57 AM
I'm really thinking about purchasing a motorcycle. I'm rather green to riding them but I know it would slash my commuting costs greatly. Anyone have any recommendations about a starter bike? I'm a large man, 5'11" around 280. I'm not looking for a crotch rocket, maybe a cruiser. Any suggestions? (REAL suggestions)

Logical
04-01-2008, 12:04 PM
I'm really thinking about purchasing a motorcycle. I'm rather green to riding them but I know it would slash my commuting costs greatly. Anyone have any recommendations about a starter bike? I'm a large man, 5'11" around 280. I'm not looking for a crotch rocket, maybe a cruiser. Any suggestions? (REAL suggestions)

I have not looked into them in years, you used to be able to get a 500 CC that was a nice stable bike and was not a crotch rocket but I don't know if you can anymore. Honda makes a good quality bike that will be maintenance friendly, if you got the bucks you can go all American with a Harley.

jAZ
04-01-2008, 12:25 PM
It dawns on me that gas is getting expensive. This is very unfair to poor people. What kind of society allows only the rich to drive the streets? Justice must be done.

My proposal is simple: a universal gas card that everybody has to carry around in order to buy gas. When you go to the pump, you are required to put in your gas card. On that gas card is information about you that will access the central database which will contain your tax returns. Your gas prices will be based on which tax bracket you are in. Once the machine has verified your gas card and got your tax bracket, a wireless RFID transmittor in the pumping station will do a wireless sweep of the area for your RFID-enabled National ID card. It will simultaneously sweep for your vehicle. Once the computer approves the transaction, you are now welcome to do business and purchase gas at the price that is available to you.

Everybody wins. Poor people get gas. Rich people pay for most of it. Justice and equality for all.
Do you mean a bus pass?

Taco John
04-01-2008, 02:18 PM
Do you mean a bus pass?


Busses aren't an option in rural areas, which themselves are very distributed places, often with the poor spread out on "the bad" side of town, away from where a lot of jobs are.

Again: If you have no gas, you have no prospects for a living wage. Could anyone possibly disagree with this statement?

BucEyedPea
04-01-2008, 02:29 PM
Busses aren't an option in rural areas, which themselves are very distributed places, often with the poor spread out on "the bad" side of town, away from where a lot of jobs are.

Again: If you have no gas, you have no prospects for a living wage. Could anyone possibly disagree with this statement?

Well why not just have a living wage then too? :D

Rain Man
04-01-2008, 02:31 PM
You know, that sounds like a good way to get in shape and make a few bucks on a weekend. I wonder how much cash I could pull in on Rickshaw duty in Portland. Hell, I wonder how much I could pull in if I had a fleet of Rickshaws? They're novel! People would love 'em going from bar to bar. Or even during the day when rich people are shopping.

Too late. We have them here in downtown Denver. They're bike rickshaws, but rickshaws nonetheless. People use them to go from hotels to the bar/restaurant/theater area if they're rich and lazy. Their main competition is horse-drawn carriages.

Rain Man
04-01-2008, 02:35 PM
As another alternative to the original post, I think a more feasible way to approach this would be to require Volvo to install trailer hitches on all of their vehicles. Then, whenever a liberal person passes a car that's more than 10 years old, he or she has to hook it up and tow it for a while. By making the rule for liberal Volvo owners only, it would then even out the fact that liberals don't make as many charitable donations as conservatives.

patteeu
04-01-2008, 02:48 PM
As another alternative to the original post, I think a more feasible way to approach this would be to require Volvo to install trailer hitches on all of their vehicles. Then, whenever a liberal person passes a car that's more than 10 years old, he or she has to hook it up and tow it for a while. By making the rule for liberal Volvo owners only, it would then even out the fact that liberals don't make as many charitable donations as conservatives.

This is the work of a true problem solver. Nice job.

Sully
04-01-2008, 02:57 PM
Too late. We have them here in downtown Denver. They're bike rickshaws, but rickshaws nonetheless. People use them to go from hotels to the bar/restaurant/theater area if they're rich and lazy. Their main competition is horse-drawn carriages.

I actually saw one in downtown KC last weekend.

Calcountry
04-01-2008, 03:51 PM
Sounds like a great idea to me Taco, I am all for it. Them dam rich white oil tycoons at Haliburton ought to be ass raped over this travesty that they have foisted on poh folk.

StcChief
04-01-2008, 03:52 PM
public transportation? walk, ride a bike?

Calcountry
04-01-2008, 03:53 PM
Just give me a stimulus check every week and I'm good.

CHIEF4EVER
04-01-2008, 04:14 PM
Actually, we should just up the Income Tax withholding to 80% across the board and let the government control our health care, social services and transportation needs. That would solve all our problems. I have seen the light. Seriously, I have. I admit that the left was right all along and I was wrong.

banyon
04-01-2008, 04:18 PM
Clearly we should just deregulate murder and be done with this whole fiction of "society". Let the market determine who lives and dies.

CHIEF4EVER
04-01-2008, 04:18 PM
LMAO

Taco John
04-01-2008, 05:11 PM
It seems I picked the wrong day to launch my proposal.

Rain Man
04-01-2008, 05:19 PM
It seems I picked the wrong day to launch my proposal.

Interestingly, your proposal parallels a more broad proposal set forth by Congresswoman Pat Schroeder of Colorado in 1991. Recognizing that America is an idea and innovation-based economy, she proposed that rich Americans be forced to give poor Americans 35 percent of their ideas, to be phased up from a starting base of 12 percent in 1992.

Sadly, the pilot project was shut down when the poor population acted upon the bestowed ideas of buying Enron stock, buying Worldcom stock, and taking up smoking.

pikesome
04-01-2008, 05:22 PM
Interestingly, your proposal parallels a more broad proposal set forth by Congresswoman Pat Schroeder of Colorado in 1991. Recognizing that America is an idea and innovation-based economy, she proposed that rich Americans be forced to give poor Americans 35 percent of their ideas, to be phased up from a starting base of 12 percent in 1992.

Sadly, the pilot project was shut down when the poor population acted upon the bestowed ideas of buying Enron stock, buying Worldcom stock, and taking up smoking.

ROFLROFLROFL

And the award for Greatest Chiefs Planet Poster of All Time goes to...

Rain Man.

Taco John
04-01-2008, 10:35 PM
Clearly we should just deregulate murder and be done with this whole fiction of "society". Let the market determine who lives and dies.

DE-regulate murder? I had no idea that there were ever even viable parameters...

SNR
04-01-2008, 10:52 PM
DE-regulate murder? I had no idea that there were ever even viable parameters...I should do some research on this. Because I have this list from high school that has a bunch of people who were mean to me, and I still haven't gotten over it...

ClevelandBronco
04-02-2008, 12:55 AM
...Perhaps the best plan would be to award federal tax incentives to every corporation that supported any employee's individual decision to commute or work from home.

An employee gets to make that decision?

...Is it safe to assume that the rebate would have to take the form of a tax credit rather than a tax deduction (in the case of an annual calculation), or do you think that the rebate should most fairly be returned at the time of purchase?

Let's see. I give them the money, then they give it back to me at the point of purchase. I thought that I might have tipped my hand at this point.

I like this idea, but I'd support the two following measures to help ensure the kind of fairness and equality that would favor the people who most deserve it.

1. Phase out the rebate for anyone who makes too much money.

2. Use the revenues saved from the above measure to fund a Gasoline Security Trust Fund that would ensure that seniors would have access to fuel in their later years.

This is where I thought that I had really betrayed TJ's intention with this thread entirely, but I couldn't hold myself back.

But if the government steps in NOW we'll be able to live paycheck to rebate to paycheck. That would have to take some of the pressure off.

My last attempt. Just an attempt to reinforce the idea that government can save us from our own habits.

...I can't believe Cleveland Bronco's posts as a conservative and a Republican...

I can't believe that you believed me either, but I promised TJ last night that I wouldn't say anything until the joke had its daylong life.

I really thought that this would have been the one that exposed me. (I was trying to channel penchief.):

...fairness and equality that would favor the people who most deserve it.

Taco John
04-02-2008, 02:39 AM
It was fun to be a communist for a day. I didn't have a care in the world, except to bleed out my heart for those who suffer from "inequality" and "injustice" of the system, while trying to wrap my arms around as much power for the central government as I possibly could... advocate for more central power, while bemoaning the plight of the poor/worker/proletariat and damning the rich/oil barrons/bourgeois. What fun! I can see how liberals get such a self righteous streak in them when they're arguing their cases. There's a certain self-congratulatory satisfaction I felt to post on behalf of "the little guy," instead for an achiever who worked their way up the ladder and is now using "the little guy" as a resource to climb up further.

My intention was to have fun advocating the absolute most communist solution to the gas situation that we are in right now, and even try to get inside the heads of folks and understand the good intentions that people have when they're arguing in favor of socialist solutions (particularly penchief, who I believe is absolutely nothing short of a communist, though just doesn't know enough to understand it).

I loved ClevelandBronco's input, because his contribution showed how the American Democratic system can take a communist idea and mask them with wholly Americanized beuraucratic white wash! All the communism with the look and feel of American bureaucracy!

APRIL FOOLS!

banyon
04-02-2008, 08:38 AM
DE-regulate murder? I had no idea that there were ever even viable parameters...

Sure, what's with all these distinctions "first degree" second degree"?

And why should the government take my FREEDOM (tax dollars) from me just to pay to house or execute these worthless POS's. Why should their murder of a third person I don't even know take away my FREEDOM AND LIBERTY!!

Punishing murderers isn't even in the Constitution, and especially TAKING MY HARD EARNED INCOME and forcing me by gunpoint to give it to these jail charities. ITS UNCONSTITIONAL!!!

If we just take the government out of it (which usually just screws things up anyway), then free enterprise would be allowed to catch these people on their own, perhaps fashion their own private jails to house these people. They'll have a natural interest themselves to develop this system in order to protect their other business assets. Basically if you oppose allowing free enterprise the chance to do this, what you are saying is THAT AMERICANS CAN'T BE TRUSTED TO SOLVE THEIR OWN PROBLEMS. We have to give more GUBMENT CHEESE to these jailers and courts because Americans are just too dumb to take care of the problem.

The American entrepreneurial spirit is our greatest asset, let it work the way it's supposed to and stop taking my FREEDOM and LIBERTY.

Taco John
04-02-2008, 09:18 AM
Sure, what's with all these distinctions "first degree" second degree"?

And why should the government take my FREEDOM (tax dollars) from me just to pay to house or execute these worthless POS's. Why should their murder of a third person I don't even know take away my FREEDOM AND LIBERTY!!

Punishing murderers isn't even in the Constitution, and especially TAKING MY HARD EARNED INCOME and forcing me by gunpoint to give it to these jail charities. ITS UNCONSTITIONAL!!!

If we just take the government out of it (which usually just screws things up anyway), then free enterprise would be allowed to catch these people on their own, perhaps fashion their own private jails to house these people. They'll have a natural interest themselves to develop this system in order to protect their other business assets. Basically if you oppose allowing free enterprise the chance to do this, what you are saying is THAT AMERICANS CAN'T BE TRUSTED TO SOLVE THEIR OWN PROBLEMS. We have to give more GUBMENT CHEESE to these jailers and courts because Americans are just too dumb to take care of the problem.

The American entrepreneurial spirit is our greatest asset, let it work the way it's supposed to and stop taking my FREEDOM and LIBERTY.



It's sad that a lawyer shows this level of ignorance of what liberty is.

Hey Banyon - Don't you suppose that you're taking away someone's liberty if you kill them? Don't you suppose that a libertarian would see this as the worst crime anyone could possibly commit? Your dopieness on this subject is alarming. It's almost as though you're incapable of thinking things through to their logical conclusions.

banyon
04-02-2008, 09:47 AM
It's sad that a lawyer shows this level of ignorance of what liberty is.

Hey Banyon - Don't you suppose that you're taking away someone's liberty if you kill them? Don't you suppose that a libertarian would see this as the worst crime anyone could possibly commit? Your dopieness on this subject is alarming. It's almost as though you're incapable of thinking things through to their logical conclusions.

Hey Taco- Don't you recognize sarcasm when you see it?

Taco John
04-02-2008, 10:03 AM
Hey Taco- Don't you recognize sarcasm when you see it?


Ah. I thought you were trying to make a legitimate point. Bless Heaven I was wrong.

patteeu
04-02-2008, 10:33 AM
It's sad that a lawyer shows this level of ignorance of what liberty is.

Hey Banyon - Don't you suppose that you're taking away someone's liberty if you kill them? Don't you suppose that a libertarian would see this as the worst crime anyone could possibly commit? Your dopieness on this subject is alarming. It's almost as though you're incapable of thinking things through to their logical conclusions.

I think this is just an equal and opposite, facetious reaction to your thread topic.

patteeu
04-02-2008, 10:34 AM
Hey Taco- Don't you recognize sarcasm when you see it?

I guess I should have finished reading the thread. I'm feeling redundant.

BucEyedPea
04-02-2008, 10:59 AM
I think this is just an equal and opposite, facetious reaction to your thread topic.

At first perhaps but it's still a bad comparison. And since satire has truth in it, it does show he doesn't understand the non-aggression doctrine of a libertarian.

banyon
04-02-2008, 12:48 PM
At first perhaps but it's still a bad comparison. And since satire has truth in it, it does show he doesn't understand the non-aggression doctrine of a libertarian.

You're so obtuse sometimes. The feigned misunderstanding of how offensive my concept would be to libertarians even though it is supposed to be presented from a libertarian viewpoint is exactly analagous to the misunderstanding of how progressive thinking people would find Taco's proposal offensive and not truly rooted in progressive principles.

Not surprised the subtlelty was lost on you...

Rain Man
04-02-2008, 01:40 PM
I guess I should have finished reading the thread. I'm feeling redundant.

You shall heretofore be known as pattoo.

BucEyedPea
04-02-2008, 01:51 PM
When I hear pat's screen name in my mind...I think of Alley-Oop from weddings I've gone to.
Patty-oo ( as in the "Oop" of "Alley-Oop")

Adept Havelock
04-02-2008, 03:12 PM
I guess I should have finished reading the thread. I'm feeling redundant.

Don't worry about it. As long as Dick Cheney needs spin, you'll never be redundant. :D

Taco John
04-02-2008, 03:23 PM
You're so obtuse sometimes. The feigned misunderstanding of how offensive my concept would be to libertarians even though it is supposed to be presented from a libertarian viewpoint is exactly analagous to the misunderstanding of how progressive thinking people would find Taco's proposal offensive and not truly rooted in progressive principles.

Not surprised the subtlelty was lost on you...


How can that be? You're in favor of a social security system, are you not? My gas analogy was pulled directly from that socialist model mixed with the idea of "no tax cuts for the rich," with the addition of the Real ID technology bent that is being foisted on us.

I'd be curious to understand which fundamental part you disagreed with. Certainly it couldn't be the whole thing. Maybe it is. Maybe you really do believe that even if gas were to go up to $7 per gallon, that it's ok if only rich people could afford it. Somehow, I doubt it. I personally believe that there's a price level breaking point when you'd be more than in favor of nationalizing the gas distribution system in the name of the working man.

banyon
04-03-2008, 09:09 AM
How can that be? You're in favor of a social security system, are you not? My gas analogy was pulled directly from that socialist model mixed with the idea of "no tax cuts for the rich," with the addition of the Real ID technology bent that is being foisted on us.

I'd be curious to understand which fundamental part you disagreed with. Certainly it couldn't be the whole thing. Maybe it is. Maybe you really do believe that even if gas were to go up to $7 per gallon, that it's ok if only rich people could afford it. Somehow, I doubt it. I personally believe that there's a price level breaking point when you'd be more than in favor of nationalizing the gas distribution system in the name of the working man.

Progressives are generally "libertarian" about civil liberties, just not economic issues, so naturally, the RFID/ ID CARD idea is anathema to me.

Additionally, I am interested in ideas that 1) do something to make the situation better (for everyone) and 2) Don't serve to simply enlarge the power or already powerful controlling private entities (monopolies). In this case, because light sweet crude is almost entirely controlled by OPEC and sets prices, this does nothing to address their cartel's hold over our populace. it would help everyone more if alternatives were developed that could compete with the monopoly good. Again, the difference between progressives and liberals is that progressives distrust large concentrations of power in either private or public form (gov't or corporate oligopolies), where liberals might easily advocate the larger government solution. Auditing the books of these petroleum companies would probably do more than this plan, and would be a more typical progressive answer. Focus less on who's getting screwed and more on who's doing the screwin' (Molly ivins quote).