Congress Paving the Way for Tolls on Interstates

SpammersDie wrote:
>
> We need to make it so that you have to actually have owed (and paid)
at
> least 10% of the median federal income tax over the past four years
in order
> to be eligible to vote. Those who don't satisfy this requirement
could still
> register if they're willing to pay a catchup fee that makes up the
> difference.

Screw that! Let's just have a real property ownership requirement!
That way, you can disenfranchise *all* the groups that Republicans
don't like!

Of course, that'll cut both ways. All that mouth-breathin',
cousin-marryin' ignorant trailer trash that thinks W is doin' a *good
job* will get cut off at the polls, too. *Then* whaddya gonna do?
Change the real property laws so a *double-wide* qualifies?
--
Ol' C.R.

In article .com>, Motorhead Lawyer wrote:

> Screw that! Let's just have a real property ownership requirement!
> That way, you can disenfranchise *all* the groups that Republicans
> don't like!
>
> Of course, that'll cut both ways. All that mouth-breathin',
> cousin-marryin' ignorant trailer trash that thinks W is doin' a *good
> job* will get cut off at the polls, too. *Then* whaddya gonna do?
> Change the real property laws so a *double-wide* qualifies?

Well that's the way it's seen now. However the founders considered this
problem wrt the issues we are now facing. That being those without
property using the government as a tool to take from those that do.

Not only in the form of redistribution schemes, but also for companies
to profit. Taking people's property only to give it to another private
enity such that it would be used 'better'(generate more property tax).

"It is nevertheless certain, that there are various ways in which the
rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and
that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor
should have a defense against the danger. On the other hand, the danger
to the holders of property can not be disguised, if they be undefended
against a majority without property." -James Madison (He was in favor of
the senate to be elected by property owners, and the representives in the
house being elected by the people at large)

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:

>
>"It is nevertheless certain, that there are various ways in which the
>rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and
>that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor
>should have a defense against the danger. On the other hand, the danger
>to the holders of property can not be disguised, if they be undefended
>against a majority without property." -James Madison (He was in favor of
>the senate to be elected by property owners, and the representives in the
>house being elected by the people at large)

Keep in mind that the constitution provided for senators being chosen by
the legislatures of the states. This was changed to popular election by
an amendment (16th I think, but not sure).

--
Rich Greenberg Marietta, GA, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 770 321 6507
Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67
Canines:Val, Red & Shasta (RIP),Red, husky Owner:Chinook-L
Atlanta Siberian Husky Rescue. www.panix.com/~richgr/ Asst Owner:Sibernet-L

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article .com>, Motorhead
> Lawyer wrote:
>
>> Screw that! Let's just have a real property ownership requirement!
>> That way, you can disenfranchise *all* the groups that Republicans
>> don't like!
>>
>> Of course, that'll cut both ways. All that mouth-breathin',
>> cousin-marryin' ignorant trailer trash that thinks W is doin' a *good
>> job* will get cut off at the polls, too. *Then* whaddya gonna do?
>> Change the real property laws so a *double-wide* qualifies?
>
> Well that's the way it's seen now. However the founders considered this
> problem wrt the issues we are now facing. That being those without
> property using the government as a tool to take from those that do.
>
> Not only in the form of redistribution schemes, but also for companies
> to profit. Taking people's property only to give it to another private
> enity such that it would be used 'better'(generate more property tax).
>
> "It is nevertheless certain, that there are various ways in which the
> rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and
> that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor
> should have a defense against the danger. On the other hand, the danger
> to the holders of property can not be disguised, if they be undefended
> against a majority without property." -James Madison (He was in favor of
> the senate to be elected by property owners, and the representives in the
> house being elected by the people at large)

And then the world moved on and only the stupid
english are stupid enough to have anything like that now.

In article >, Rich Greenberg wrote:
> In article >,
> Brent P > wrote:
>
>>
>>"It is nevertheless certain, that there are various ways in which the
>>rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and
>>that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor
>>should have a defense against the danger. On the other hand, the danger
>>to the holders of property can not be disguised, if they be undefended
>>against a majority without property." -James Madison (He was in favor of
>>the senate to be elected by property owners, and the representives in the
>>house being elected by the people at large)
>
> Keep in mind that the constitution provided for senators being chosen by
> the legislatures of the states. This was changed to popular election by
> an amendment (16th I think, but not sure).

Yes. they weren't perfect people. The state legislatures often battled
over who would be senator, resulting in no senator, there were also
corruption problems. A number of problems eventually resulted in
elections for senator.

I only intended to show that this kind of problem was foreseen, and that
it is not merely a simple one of giving 'republicans' an advantage. It's
about a fundamental problem in protecting the liberty of the people in
the republic.

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> How can you be so familiar with a road yet not know its correct name?

There is a little road I use a few times a week, it has no street sign. I
don't know what it's name is. I looked it up once, but since forgot.
There is one little sign saying what road it is, but it's one of those
intersection warning signs from one of the approach directions. The name
is in small print and I don't slow down to read it.

In article >,
says...
> In article > ,
> Mark Anderson > wrote:
> >In article says...
> >> I'm glad we agree. Of course at the same time completely get rid of
> >> corporate taxes, since corporate taxes really are consumer taxes since
> >> the tax burden is just built into the price of goods.
> >
> >This is a myth propagated by people who don't understand economics. If
> >corporate taxes were eliminated, Starbucks isn't going to lower the price
> >of its coffee. The reason it charges $4 for a cup of coffee is that they
> >have determined the consumer is willing to pay that price. If their
> >market gurus found that the consumer was willing to pay $5 for a cup of
> >coffee with an acceptable drop off in demand, Starbucks will charge $5,
> >corporate tax or no corporate tax.
>
> This is a myth propagated by people who have a little knowledge about
> economics. The model where cost has no impact on price only works in
> a monopoly world.


Try studying the subject of "Branding." It is part of
advertising/marketing.

For example, Branding is why the tin of beans with the
recognisable name and pretty picture on the label costs
more than the generic "no-name" tin of beans. Even if
the actual product inside is identical (sometimes even
made in the same factory on the same line.)

Starbucks IS a quasi-monopoly, since they are the only
ones who sell *Starbucks_Brand* coffee, which may be
PERCEIVED as special, and worth a $$$ premium.

The price of a product (or specific brand thereof) is
very much influenced by the consumer's PERCEPTION of
its value. And PERCEPTION is influenced by emotions,
rather than an objective understanding of reality.

This applies to other areas of life. Many years ago, I
learned that social interactions could be influenced by
the other person's PERCEPTION of my financial/socio-
economic status. And that their PERCEPTION could be
very different from reality...

"You have a job (ANY job), so therefore you are
wealthy, and can afford to be my sugar-mommy, and you
are evil if you refuse."

"You live a simple, non-materialistic lifestyle,
without a pile of consumer toys, therefore you are a
low-class, desperately-impoverished deadbeat."

Etc, etc, in many areas.


--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum

In article >,
Antipodean Bucket Farmer > wrote:
>In article >,
says...
>> In article > ,
>> Mark Anderson > wrote:
>> >In article says...
>> >> I'm glad we agree. Of course at the same time completely get rid of
>> >> corporate taxes, since corporate taxes really are consumer taxes since
>> >> the tax burden is just built into the price of goods.
>> >
>> >This is a myth propagated by people who don't understand economics. If
>> >corporate taxes were eliminated, Starbucks isn't going to lower the price
>> >of its coffee. The reason it charges $4 for a cup of coffee is that they
>> >have determined the consumer is willing to pay that price. If their
>> >market gurus found that the consumer was willing to pay $5 for a cup of
>> >coffee with an acceptable drop off in demand, Starbucks will charge $5,
>> >corporate tax or no corporate tax.
>>
>> This is a myth propagated by people who have a little knowledge about
>> economics. The model where cost has no impact on price only works in
>> a monopoly world.
>
>
>Try studying the subject of "Branding." It is part of
>advertising/marketing.
>
>For example, Branding is why the tin of beans with the
>recognisable name and pretty picture on the label costs
>more than the generic "no-name" tin of beans. Even if
>the actual product inside is identical (sometimes even
>made in the same factory on the same line.)

You've never tried the no-name tins, have you? Sometimes, the no-name
products are just as good. Often, they simply aren't. The advantage
to the consumer of the brand is one of consistency.

>Starbucks IS a quasi-monopoly, since they are the only
>ones who sell *Starbucks_Brand* coffee, which may be
>PERCEIVED as special, and worth a $$$ premium.

Substitute products abound within their market; a monopoly on selling
a particular brand is _not_ at all the same as having a monopoly on
the product. Brand loyalty allows them to maintain some premium, not
total insulation from competition.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:32:53 -0800, MrPepper11 wrote:

> ...with higher
> tolls in effect during rush hours to nudge drivers into making some of
> their trips during less busy times....

OK, but are they going to change the notion of the standard workday being
9 to 5 or whatever, too, to also 'nudge' drivers into making trips at
other times?

When I used to live in an area with tolls, I would bypass them by using
either surface roads, or back roads [county roads] and generally get to
where I was going at the same time, or a little earlier.

"Bob Lutz" > wrote in message
newsan.2005.03.16.19.02.04.889976@blutz...
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:32:53 -0800, MrPepper11 wrote:
>
> > ...with higher
> > tolls in effect during rush hours to nudge drivers into making some of
> > their trips during less busy times....
>
> OK, but are they going to change the notion of the standard workday being
> 9 to 5 or whatever, too, to also 'nudge' drivers into making trips at
> other times?
>

Good question. It doesn't seem right to tell someone that they have to be
unemployed or pay hefty fines because someone else dictates their
chedule. -Dave