Five easy reasons to oppose ObamaTolls

[Demo_Chris]

A. It's regressive as hell. It could hardly be more regressive.

B. It's a double blow to truckers and anyone else who travels for a living. Not only will it cost them more money directly, but it will slow them way down. This is not only irritating, it adds to the cost of doing business -- which will be passed along as possible in the form of more regressive price hikes. Apparently Obama thinks the things you buy, your food for example, is too cheap.

C. It allows our NSA to more easily monitor and database the movements of every citizen. And yes, that's exactly what they would do.

D. It forces traffic to slow and then reaccelerate, both of which are terrible for fuel economy and the environment.

E. If we allow this, it will be yet another dagger in the back of the working people who form the backbone of our party. We will not simply have forgotten about them, as is the case today, we will be actively fucking them over. Right now the poor and lower middle class people are drowning, this proposal is like handing them a weight and telling them to swim harder.

[Recursion]

1. When did this become a party that stopped supporting making driving more expensive?

Or was that only ever theoretical, as long as it didn't actually affect us?

[Cha]

2. When somebody thinks they can get a hateon Obama and use all kinds of ignorant excuses.

[msanthrope]

83. I'm sure the Five Reasons to Resist ObamaGrazingFees thread is coming. nt

[Bobbie Jo]

87. Nailed it. nt

[msanthrope]

90. Stolen from another excellent DUer...jberryhill. Hell...I wanna know why no one

has a problem with the residents in the Northeast Corridor paying tolls.

[11 Bravo]

98. And don't get them started on those damned Obama tornadoes!

[msanthrope]

102. I'm sure the red states will eschew disaster relief and pull thenselves

up by their bootstraps.

[sabrina 1]

113. The topic is the Working Class. But if you're not interested in the topic, you might want to start

a thread exposing those who blame Obama for tornadoes. This one is about further burdening the working class, which these tolls will certainly do.

[Demo_Chris]

4. Who, other than the radical affluent fringe...

Thinks that making driving more expensive is anything other than insane in the depths of a depression?

[Recursion]

5. 1. We aren't in the depths of a depression

2. That's been the underlying premise of our transportation and energy policy as a party for decades, so you should probably get to work on changing that if you find it fundamentally wrong.

[Politicalboi]

6. When they tax the 1% like they should

And raise the minimum wage to $15.00, $10.10 is NOT enough. Without that, this burden once again is on the backs of those who can least afford it. What they should do, is make it cost more to register older cars, and less for new cars. Each year older, another $100.00 a year.

[Recursion]

7. Jesus! That would hurt the poor much more than Interestate tolls

$2000 a year extra to drive your 20-year-old car!!??

[LuvNewcastle]

11. Thank you!

Who in the hell does he think drives older cars? It ain't the rich, unless they have some vintage car that they scoot around in now and then. Old cars are all the poor can afford these days. I've never owned a car that wasn't at least 10 years old.

[Politicalboi]

17. I know the poor drive older cars

Mine is 14 years old. But to avoid tolls, there's got to be a better way. And making it start now won't make it $2,000. We already paid for those fees, so they count. I think $100.00 in the long run would be cheaper than paying a toll both $10.00 a day just to go to work and come home. That would be $200.00 a month not counting gas.

[LuvNewcastle]

18. What about motorcycles?

Right now I get around on a scooter. It'll do 75 mph, but I don't take it on the interstate because it's so small and light. I'll be getting a motorcycle soon, though, and I'll ride it on the interstate. Charging tolls would eat up all the money I'm saving by riding on two wheels.

These tolls and extra taxes are a very bad idea. For one thing, they're regressive taxes. For another, we've got all these corporations paying absolutely nothing in taxes. We have billions of dollars in subsidies for oil companies every year, and we have taxes being lowered for the wealthy every time we turn around. When all those people are paying their fair share, I might entertain the idea, but until then, I really don't want to hear anything about it, especially not while the economy is in such bad shape.

[Politicalboi]

12. No not $2000 a year, sorry

They would have to start it now. I pay around $170.00 so next year I would pay $270.00. They should cap it at $500.00 or $1000 depending on your yearly income. The registration fees for new cars is huge. Lessen by half, give them 5 years, and then start increasing it $100.00 a year after. If it's a green car give them 7 or 10 years before increasing. Tolls just seem to open to money funneling and cause slow traffic.

[Recursion]

14. That's still more regressive than tolls, though

I mean, if you want to put that forward I'd grudgingly support it if it's the only option, but I think a usage tax on roads is better.

[Travis_0004]

33. Why charge more to register older cars?

I pay around 40 bucks a year for my car in Ohio. I know Kentucky charges based on the value of your car, and expensive cars pay the most in registration fees. I'm fine with how Kentucky does it, but I think charging more for old cars is a dumb idea. If anything, you should charge more for new cars, since they can afford it. I don't think I should pay less to register my 2013 car than somebody who has a 2000 car.

Making car registration also affect lower income people more because its a big bill that comes once a year. If we raised the gas tax instead, it would only be a few pennies every fill up, and it would affect those who drive more, and who drive less fuel efficent cars more.

[jberryhill]

73. What "they" should do....

So now you want federal motor vehicle registration?

[Recursion]

79. Well, I do, but I'm also one of those authoritarian toll-supporters

Hell, I'd like federal motor vehicle and gun registration, in the same office...

[sabrina 1]

115. Speak for yourself. Millions of working people ARE in a depression. Good for you if you are not

among them, I truly am happy for anyone who is not. But to claim that America's working class is doing alright is simply stunning, frankly.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. When it became apparent that we may actually have to spend more money...

It's always easy to be righteous before the bill comes in.

(I see what you meant about the odd hatred of Obamatolls.)

[pampango]

20. Our inability (unwillingness) to raise taxes on the rich derails many progressive ideas -

like making driving more expensive.

Most developed countries have much more expensive gasoline than we have in the US. Of course, they also have higher, more progressive taxes that fund an effective safety net and public transportation system. Without a foundation of high, progressive taxes we are left to argue over how to achieve progressive goals without the funding to do it.

Something tells me that republicans understand this. They know that as long as they block higher taxes (and keep harping on government borrowing) they can emasculate any progressive (and most old-fashioned moderate) proposals.

Without higher taxes on the rich or additional government borrowing, the money for any new or expanded government spending has to come from the working and middle classes. Guess what happens then. Progressives turn on each other. "Sure this is a great idea (fixing highway infrastructure, limit driving and environmental damage, etc.) but the working and middle classes should not have to pay for it. They cannot afford it." VS. "But this is a great idea. Are we going to give up on it just because we can't get the rich to pay their share?"

And republicans keep right on smiling.

[Recursion]

21. Hmm... Not sure I agree. Taxes in Europe are pretty damn regressive.

What with that VAT and all. Are you sure Europe taxes more progressively than the US?

[pampango]

23. The VAT like our FICA is regressive but their income taxes are high and progressive.

Their VAT is flat (therefore regressive) but it does not have an upper limit cap like our FICA has, so at least the rich in Europe don't "max out" on the VAT like high income earners do with our FICA.

And despite the regressive nature of their VAT it is popular because it is used to fund their safety net. And it is more palatable because the rich pay more in income taxes. (If their income taxes were as regressive as ours, who knows how popular the VAT would be.) A flat VAT coupled with progressive income taxes that fund an effective safety net and health care system seems to be a combination that European workers are willing to accept and support.

The fact that income equality in Europe is the highest in the world is largely due to the high and progressive taxes they pay and the safety net that those taxes support. You don't get world-class income equality with regressive taxes. (If you did, the US would have the most equitable income distribution in the world. )

If I were creating a tax system to support a progressive society I would not turn to a VAT. But the Europeans have and do have a very equitable society compared to any other real-world examples. IMHO, they could improve their tax system without the VAT but their overall tax system is certainly better than ours and they seem to support it and benefit from it far more than Americans do from theirs.

[Recursion]

24. So, the only person who I know has looked at this is Yglesias...

... and I know he's considered with suspicion here. But his analysis was that the effective tax rate in the Eurozone is slightly but noticeably more regressive than the tax rate here, when you count consumption taxes.

I don't know.

This isn't a hill I'm up for dying on, particularly against my own party, I just thought this was largely a concept we supported, and am surprised.

[pampango]

25. I am not familiar with Yglesias' analysis but income inequality is a huge problem and Europe

seems to have dealt with in an effective manner that is accepted and supported by their citizens.

As I said, it seems to me that their society would be even more equitable without a VAT and with more taxes on the rich. I acknowledge that Europeans know their corner of the world better than I do. Perhaps the VAT (similar to our FICA) helps create a sense of ownership of and political support for the resulting safety net that makes it harder for the rich to cut. And the higher income taxes that the rich pay may be harder for their 'republicans' to cut because the middle class pays so much in VAT and wants to see the rich pay more in income taxes to balance that out.

In the context of the OP, I think that European liberals are more supportive of high gas taxes and tolls because the resulting hardship is balanced out by the societal gains and the knowledge that the overall revenue system is one they accept and support.

[awoke_in_2003]

117. And our inability to cut military spending. nt

[msanthrope]

32. When the black President suggested it. nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

66. You've just accused a majority of Democrats of being racist.

You made the accusation without a shred of evidence. You should be ashamed of yourself. You won't be, but you should.

[Recursion]

67. When the shoe fits...

This was something Al Gore and Howard Dean proposed a decade ago... what's different now?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

70. So you're also accusing anyone who doesn't agree with your thesis of being racist?

That's weak stuff. I thought you liked to at least pretend to be a big thinker, but you've gone straight to the last refuge. Unimpressive.

[Recursion]

71. Well, I can't think of anything different besides the race of the person proposing it

If you can, I'm all ears...

[Demo_Chris]

104. The difference is that one of these men is the current PRESIDENT. nt

[Doctor_J]

81. As if that's new?

it's become one of the top three responses to anyone who doesn't like TPP, school corporatization, KXL, health insurance mandates, or the end of internet neutrality.

[uponit7771]

75. They're going to ignore this question as if it wasn't asked...

[Recursion]

76. I've noticed that too

[msanthrope]

74. Majority of Democrats? Where? There are about 20-30 posters on DU who are

currently bemoaning that the red states will now be subject to tolls just like the blue state North East Corridor.

That is not a viewpoint shared by a majority of Democrats.... In fact I bet if you went and asked every single Democrat in the Northeast Corridor why they should be paying tolls but other people should not be you'd get an earfull of expletives.

Why is paying your fair share is remotely controversial??? Why...as Recursion pointed out upthread..was this acceptable when Howard Dean and Al Gore suggested this????

Christ...next the federal government will want grazing fees.

[bettyellen]

106. True that, Red States do not like to pay their fair share to care for their own.

WTF are we doing supporting that bullshit for?

[Adrahil]

64. I don't support making driving more expensive and never have.

I favor making it less environmentally destructive, and always have.

[lumberjack_jeff]

88. When did it start?

I don't remember "driving should cost more" as a plank in any D platform, and I've been one for a long time.

[grahamhgreen]

109. Electric cars are less expensive to drive.... By far when you consider the environment, duh.

[ohnoyoudidnt]

126. When did our party want to make driving more expensive?

Not a few millionaire politicians, but the majority of the working class?

[Jesus Malverde]

3. Can't be the only one who saw obamatrolls

Good info demo_chris

[LuvNewcastle]

8. That's what I saw, too.

I had to re-read the headline a few times before I figured it out. I hadn't heard about the tolls, but now that I have, I think it's a horrible idea.

[Jesus Malverde]

13. Its a bad idea unless your an investor

Then it's awesome to have a government partner, captive customers and a guaranteed cash flow.

Long live the free market!

It's like the SNAP program, it puts cash into jpmorgan chase or xerox every time you use the card.

Like Walmart they are predators of poverty programs and very pleased with themselves.

[LuvNewcastle]

19. That's exactly right. It would just be more welfare for the rich.

Seems like we can't spend a dime in this country unless some rich bastard is sucking up a nickel of it. I'm so sick of this shit I could projectile vomit all over their $3000 suits.

[Jesus Malverde]

22. Lulz

10,000 suits!

Get with the program

[Skidmore]

10. Tolls on roads come in the absence of levying taxes to maintain infrastructure.

Take it up with this freakingly negligent millionaire Congress who have no problems with crater holes in highways and bridges collapsing so they can avoid contributing to the common good.

[intheflow]

131. ^^ This. ^^

[blkmusclmachine]

15. Obamatrolls? Oh, it's ObamaTOLLS.

[corkhead]

26. I swear I saw that "r" there myself. It's certainly not inappropriate to have it there.

[1000words]

129. Your post was alerted, believe it or not.

It failed miserably:

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

it's funny, the people who call Obama\dems\DUers trolls are pretty much the ones who are trolls.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu May 1, 2014, 11:36 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hey, Alerter, GET A SENSE OF HUMOR! For. Fucks. Sake.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sigh ... I can only hope this is a 0-7 LEAVE, and alerter is put in the corner for a day.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Maybe I'm wrong, I don't think there was "intent" to be rude. Perhaps the person actually misread the title of the thread and should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Uhh.. poster misreads a title and makes a joke about it. How on earth is this alert worthy?

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. Two big reasons to support them:

1) funding for infrastructure maintenance and repair that's badly needed.

2) driving fuel efficiency and reducing unnecessary driving.

I just love the unconcsious hypocrisy of self-described "progressives" who purport to be concerned about climate change but want cheap gasoline and oppose things that might actually begin to reduce some fossil fuel use. You can't have it both ways.

[Laelth]

28. There are good ways and bad ways to accomplish those noble goals.

Toll booths, I think, are a very bad way. We can do better, and, if we can't, we should do nothing until such time as the political environment will allow us to do better.

-Laelth

[Spider Jerusalem]

31. The best you can do now is better than nothing now and something at some indeterminate date.

The cost of driving for the average American needs to increase to incentivise driving less, less car-dependence and a shift to more efficient vehicles. This is one way to do it. Infrastructure needs to be repaired and this is one way to do that. Unless you have some other politically feasible proposal that accomplishes both of those goals in any kind of reasonable timeframe you really have nothing to contribute to the conversation.

[Laelth]

37. I disagree with your fundamental analysis.

The best you can do now, imo, is not better than nothing ... not always, in any event. In this case, I think nothing is better. Passing a law that will crush Democrats at the polls is not a good way to protect the environment, and that is the goal, isn't it?



-Laelth

[Dawgs]

52. EXACTLY!! What the fuck is going on with the place?

A regressive tax that will hurt Democratic chances is a big, terrible, fucking idea.

The thread I saw before this one had someone saying they support that tea party fuck Rand Paul.

Excuse my language, but I'm pissed.

[Laelth]

54. PBO loyalists are just doing what they often do.

And that's blind support without thought. We need people like that, but we don't need them making decisions that affect the entire party across the United States.

As I said elsewhere, I honestly hope that this is a bluff from the President. It's a bluff to the Republicans in the House--pass a transportation bill, or I am going to blame you for toll roads, and a bluff to the American people--get these Republican clowns out of Congress, or we're all going to have to pay higher taxes through tolls.

I am not sure it's a good bluff (because the President and the Democratic Party will be blamed, regardless), but we'll see how it plays out.

-Laelth

[customerserviceguy]

40. How about fuel taxes?

Wouldn't that accomplish the same purposes, while taxing the SUV more than the hybrid?

[Recursion]

89. Sure, but it's also regressive

You're talking about two differently regressive ways to tax driving automobiles (and that's going to have to be regressive, ultimately, because the Kochs don't drive their cars 10 million times as much as I do). Why is it so important which one it is? I'd be happy to support either one.

[customerserviceguy]

133. There have been reasons advanced

in other posts on this thread as to why tolls are a bad idea. We already have a fuel taxation system fully in place, all we'd need to do is tweak the numbers to raise more money.

Yes, they're both regressive, but that's the nature of the 'user fee' style of taxation that motor vehicles seem to be so handy for.

[nadinbrzezinski]

123. I would agree IF... we had extensive, and good public transportation systems

like they have in your home country.

I live in a city where I can do quite a bit using the Trolley. the buss system is so inefficient that it takes triple the time to get from point A to point B using the bus system. So yes, I could go to my doctor for the appointment using the bus, but instead of an hour and a half, including the appointment, we are talking four hours. And it is in a good neighborhood.

And if you live outside the city, and as far away as Alpine, good luck with public transportation... it is essentially non existent. Many of those residents work in San Diego though, and need to drive.

So noble yes, but not without a lot of other things. Also, we pay that money with gas taxes, and that money is not used for infrastructure for the most part.

[Travis_0004]

29. Why not just increase the gas tax

Its more fair, because everybody who drives pays for gas. Toll roads can be avoided.

It provides more incentive to increase fuel economy. Tolls don't really have the same incentive.

[Pholus]

34. But that doesn't accomplish other key goals.

1) Corporations have to have a "cut" of the implementation.

2) Data has to be generated for our "collect it all" obsessed law enforcement.

[Nay]

59. Exactly. I'd wager that both of these points are the actual goals of

toll roads.

We double pay some corp to put in the booths, hire cheap workers, etc., and then we sell off the fucking road for pennies on the dollar to some other corp to run it -- 80% of the money collected won't ever go to infrastructure, it goes to line some rich asshole's pocket.

Never mind that toll roads don't tax every driver, and they slow everyone down.

And think of all that data on who is going where at what time? It's an NSA gold mine.

Just add a nickel to the federal gas tax! Simple! But again, like you, I think there are other goals in the shadows.

[Recursion]

68. How does that avoid the same criticism? A gas tax is also regressive (nt)

[pscot]

69. The oil companues won't allow it

[whistler162]

95. Fair to the affluent but costly to the poor!

[rhett o rick]

111. There are other ways of accomplishing what you are promoting.

Strapping another tax on the backs of the lower classes is the Right Wing Way.

Since when do Democrats choose taxing the lower classes vice taxing the wealthy?

[Spider Jerusalem]

116. Taxing transport is the only way to get people to drive less and buy more efficient vehicles.

A little economic pain now that can be offset by increased efficiency, or a lot of pain for a lot more people much later. Sorry, but I don't happen to think that making driving cheap so that Americans can continue to use 20+% of the world's oil with 5% of the population in an era when climate change is an increasingly pressing concern is a very useful thing to be doing.

[awoke_in_2003]

118. And what about those....

who cannot afford to buy new, more efficient vehicles? Fuck 'em, as usual.

[rhett o rick]

130. I love it when people say that they know "the only" way. "Taxing transport is the only way"

No it's not. There rarely is just one way.

[Laelth]

27. How about this one?

It's electoral suicide for Democrats. That alone should make us wary.

By all means, increase revenues, protect the environment, and discourage excessive driving, but do it all in a way that isn't perceived as a major irritant by the driving (and voting) public.

-Laelth

[msanthrope]

30. Not here in the northeast...where we blue states pay for bridges with tolls. nt

[Laelth]

36. Perhaps.

But in the areas where there are not currently toll roads, the new toll booths springing up will not help local Democrats at the polls.

-Laelth

[msanthrope]

46. I bet those are primarily very red areas....who already aren't pulling their weight. nt

[Laelth]

48. Mostly, yes.

But it won't do the Democratic Party of Georgia any good for national Democrats to pass this proposed law. The DPG is weak enough, as is, without having to defend toll booths.

-Laelth

[msanthrope]

56. Why should they defend?? They should go on offense and demand

that the Republican congressman and the Republican controlled legislatures come up with plans to pay for these bridges and roads. It's time to call out libertarian financing.

[Laelth]

57. As a member of the DPG, I have to defend toll booths if the President proposes them.

I may think toll booths are a terrible idea (and I do), but when the President proposes them, I find myself in a very awkward position, as you can imagine.

There are better ways to protect the environment and restore our infrastructure than to pass (or propose) laws that will undoubtedly hurt Democrats across vast areas of the country. If protecting the environment is the goal, I fail to see how hurting Democrats at the polls is useful to us.

-Laelth

[msanthrope]

58. Go on the offensive.... you are choosing to defend. nt

[HomerRamone]

47. This Bostonian is quite familiar with avoiding tolls (and their resultant traffic jams)

I never resort to "liberal elite" insults, being still-liberal and once semi-elite, but JESUS...

[Doctor_J]

82. Yeah, a tax increase right now is bad timing

but this admin is extremely clumsy

[Laelth]

86. Overall, I have been pleased with Obama in his role as leader of the Democratic Party.

I think he erred in certain areas, but, overall, he has been quite effective. On this issue, however, my hope is that the President is bluffing as I have said elsewhere. It's a bluff to the Republicans in the House--pass a transportation bill, or I am going to blame you for toll roads, and a bluff to the American people--get these Republican clowns out of Congress, or we're all going to have to pay higher taxes through tolls.

I am not sure it's a good bluff (because the President and the Democratic Party will be blamed, regardless), but we'll see how it plays out.

-Laelth

[SidDithers]

35. Reason #6. Obama's proposing it!...

Is ODS covered under Obamacare?

Sid

[Laelth]

38. I honestly hope this is a bluff from the President.

It's a bluff to the Republicans in the House--pass a transportation bill, or I am going to blame you for toll roads, and a bluff to the American people--get these Republican clowns out of Congress, or we're all going to have to pay higher taxes through tolls.

I am not sure it's a good bluff (because the President and the Democratic Party will be blamed, regardless), but we'll see how it plays out.

-Laelth

[Nay]

60. Well, yeah, if it's a bluff it's a stupid one. nt

[chervilant]

39. Already...

Right now the poor and lower middle class people are drowning, this proposal is like handing them a weight and telling them to swim harder.

We're already asked to ignore the sharks all around us...

[Lars39]

41. Poor people would be hurt. That should be reason enough.

TN legislators are a fine example of greedy mofos trying to suck every spare dollar out if people's pockets...voting against transit systems, damn governor making his millions from gas stations.
Who do you think would have stock in toll road companies before voting to establish the toll roads here in TN?
Sure as hell not the poor rural people a hundred miles from Nashville trying to scrape up an extra 10 or 20 bucks to get to Vanderbilt children's hospital with a kid that has chronic health issues. And they might make that trip several times a month.

How the hell are they supposed to find the extra money for toll roads that the gas taxes are supposed to already cover?

Democrats should be the last people to ever suggest such a regressive idea!

[Bonhomme Richard]

42. They will do anything to avoid raising taxes on the wealthy. n/t

[randome]

62. How would you suggest raising taxes on the wealthy when the GOP obstructs it every time?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[SMC22307]

119. He should have done nothing and let the Bush tax cuts FULLY expire.

Gotta be his biggest mistake.

And lest anyone come back re: the long-term unemployed... guess what? They're still unemployed, and now with NO benefits.

[KurtNYC]

43. if they are going to do this why not just hang an anchor around the neck of every Dem running ?

easy to see this idea is a loser and Repubs will beat us over the head with it; even if it doesn't go, just proposing it is enough to do the damage.

why some Dems love more taxes is beyond me. I pay nearly 50% of my income now for prisons, wars, corporate subsidies and wasteful insider deals. F that noise.

[Android3.14]

44. I support tolls, if...

The funds go to roads and other national infrastructure. That, of course, is what the politicians will say, but then it will never happen. Remember the promise that Lotto money would go to public schools?

[99Forever]

45. F.

Unless you are looking to drive voters away from the Democratic Party, this should do it.

Until the rich and the corporate scum start paying their fair share, sticking ANOTHER fucking knife in the back of the working class will relegate Dems to obscurity.

[alcibiades_mystery]

49. Frank lUntz testeD terminology

[MohRokTah]

50. In answer to B & D, ever hear of open road tolling? eom

[Ikonoklast]

132. Ever hear of a fifteen-dollar gallon of milk? How about a five dollar pack of gum?

You would if states are allowed to toll their sections of the interstate, previously already paid for by the taxpayers.


Tolls are nothing but a tax on those least able to afford it, because they pay even if they can't afford to own a vehicle of any kind.

[notadmblnd]

51. I was under the impression that I already paid tolls to drive on interstates

through gasoline taxes that I pay when I fill up. Does this mean that the gas tax will be allowed to lapse or will we be required to pay double?

[Dawgs]

53. The ONLY acceptable way to charge for driving is making it progressive, not regressive.

The rich should pay more for everything. This proposal ONLY hurts the poor and middle class workers.

Any other idea is just plain dumb.

BTW, it also kills the Democrats slim chances of keeping either house of congress.

[woo me with science]

55. For me, this one is visceral.

America is about being able to hop on a highway and go anywhere, no matter who you are.

There have been massive betrayals in recent years. Serious, vicious betrayals. But this one has a symbolic aspect to it.

They are changing how it feels to live in America.

[NCTraveler]

93. Had to log on just to give you a +1 for this comment.

I can find many things I dislike about this, but you nailed it. It is a slow and fundamental change in thought of what it is to be an American.

"America is about being able to hop on a highway and go anywhere, no matter who you are."

"They are changing how it feels to live in America."

Simple yet great post wmws.

[bvar22]

122. +2 Woo.

For most of my life, the Democratic Party has been the champion of the Working Class and Poor.
I do NOT recognize what passes for the Democratic Party today,
and have nothing but contempt for those justifying the Regressive Tax that WOULD disproportionately affect the Working Class & Poor.
...Nothing but contempt.

The cheer leaders are behaving like Republicans.


[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[nationalize the fed]

61. k/r some people get it

but the numbers are diminishing

[randome]

63. Your Point C is idiotic paranoia.

I think federal tolls are a bad idea but when you mix that kind of stuff with the rest, you do yourself no service.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[cherokeeprogressive]

91. Yeah.

Because we all know there won't be license plate cameras at every toll booth. To what end?

[alcibiades_mystery]

65. So many of the Interstates back east are already toll roads

The NY State Thruway - which is I-87 and I-90 is already toll. I-95 is already tolled through many states, including the NJ turnpike. The PA Turnpike (I-76) is tolled; most of Ohio, and all along I-90/I-80 is tolled; all of Indiana (I-80) is tolled, and there are additional tolls on the N-S Interstates through Indiana; you hit tolls all through northern Illinois. And that's just the states I drive through most often.

I certainly agree that infrastructure spending should be derived largely from taxes on the wealthy, but I'm wondering who all these people are who will be shocked by tolled interstates. Most of the interstates I've driven on are toll roads.

[Harmony Blue]

72. The northeast has had a massive exodux

of its population and its tax base was dwindled as a result

In Florida some highways are tolls but they are not really anything to brag about compared to other highways.

[alcibiades_mystery]

77. Ohio and Indiana aren't the northeast

In any case, despite the "massive exodux (sic)", the Northeast is not hurting for population. Those roads weren't converted to toll as a result of some population decrease, moreover, so it's not clear what your point might be. The NY State Thruway was a toll road since before the Interstate system. Ditto the PA Turnpike (1940's) and the NJ Turnpike (1948).

[jberryhill]

80. I think Exodux is a Pokemon

[Throd]

78. "ObamaToll"? Did Sean Hannitty coin that term?

[alcibiades_mystery]

92. Frank lUntz testeD

[MrTriumph]

84. Pres. Obama's dumbest idea ever.

He really is a continuation of G W Bush's mismanagement.

[lumberjack_jeff]

85. Getting labor to work is a function of business and commerce.

Tolls are just another way to externalize the costs of business onto labor.

[Laelth]

94. +1. n/t

-Laelth

[bobduca]

96. Cue the paid apologists

[dembotoz]

97. 6 it is an issue easy for the rethugs to frame and use as a club

a 6th grader could come up with a popular campaign against it

[HomerRamone]

99. Change you can toss in! nt

[Demo_Chris]

105. You win this thread. nt

[ZombieHorde]

100. I think we should increase gasoline tax.

An argument against raising gasoline taxes is gas-powered cars are slowly phasing out, so that tax would have to be replaced by something else, such as tolls, raising taxes on the wealthy, etc. I would rather see taxes raised on the wealthy, but they seem to own the government.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

101. Reason number six. Pure politics.

Republicans would make it an albatross around the necks of Dems. It would indeed be called 'ObamaTolls' or 'PelosiTolls' or whoever on the Dem side was inclined to vote for it in any given state or district.

Gas taxes are more 'hidden', especially in this era of ever higher gas prices. But plop toll booths down on the highways, and they'll be used to beat Dems over the head and a constant reminders to drivers every time they pull out their wallets.

Oh yeah, and reason 7 - poor people will simply start clogging alternate non-highway routes, causing city and county streets to degrade far faster, creating more traffic accidents and pissing off people in neighborhoods where traffic is suddenly far greater.

[IronLionZion]

103. Conservatives are opposing the tolls too

for some of the same reasons.

Our roads, bridges, transit systems, etc. are in piss poor shape. I can see the flooding caused by inadequate storm drains around here and a whole urban residential street has had a catastrophic sinkhole in baltimore. This stuff needs to be fixed. America's highway, 95, is in miserable shape in some stretches of MD and in desperate need of repaving. Dams are overflowing dangerously. I lived in Minneapolis when the 35W bridge collapsed into the river without warning. Fixing this stuff would stimulate the economy much more than a lot of other bullshit like payroll tax cuts.

Who's going to make the 1% pay for this?

I commute 4 hours 120 miles every day to different client sites because my life sucks. I don't have the luxury of riding a bike or taking the bus to some trendy job in the city where I can judge all those car-using polluters and feel self righteous. I would pay a little bit more each day in tolls if and only if they fix some of this shit, which includes the god damn bike lanes and buses and rail and pedestrian walkways.

[rhett o rick]

114. The problem is that if we cant get the 1% to pay their way, we are screwed. Why should be build

roads for them and their employees. They need to pay their fair share.

[JoeyT]

107. You can add to D with

Gridlocked traffic on the non-toll roads as they try to carry far more traffic than they were designed to.

Anyone that claims this is going to reduce the amount of gas burned is either delusional or being intentionally deceptive.

[dilby]

108. We are serfs, we are the labor for wealthy corporations.

And when wealthy corporations want new roads to transport their goods and labor around the country they have the serfs build them and pay for them. Slavery never went away, it just evolved into serfdom and the slave owners just turned into rich corporations who no longer had to house, clothe and feed their slaves but instead get to pass those costs off to their serfs.

[progressoid]

110. I'll give you three out of five of those.

[The Straight Story]

112. My easy solution? Cut military spending, divert to roads. But Nooooo.

That would be too easy.

[colsohlibgal]

120. Another Sign Of Who Obama Really Is

In the 50's a republican, Eisenhower, initiated building our interstate freeway system and largely paid for it with a high marginal tax rate of over 90%. Hardly a peep about it but there was no Fox News screaming class warfare.

50-60 years later we get a "democratic" president who wants to extract it bit by bit from everyday people. God forbid we tax the filthy rich. If both parties keep tacking right we may wind up in an "Elysium" type world.

[babylonsister]

121. Give me a break. WHO doesn't want to tax

the filthy rich?

[dreamnightwind]

136. That post seemed accurate to me

edit to add: in case I wasn't clear I meant the post you responded to.

[neverforget]

124. F. Privatizing the roads will come soon after

Free market and all.

[Puzzledtraveller]

125. krecc

[dionysus]

127. yes, that debbil "Obush", as i believe you called him, invented the concept of toll roads.

[greatauntoftriplets]

134. Even worse than that!

He invented them before he was born!!! Just how diabolical is that???

I'll join you in that

[Demo_Chris]

135. How does your strawman address anything I wrote? nt