Highway fund is falling into holes | ...

Highway fund is falling into holes | The Columbus Dispatch

There are 170 comments on the Columbus Dispatch story from Jul 4, 2011, titled Highway fund is falling into holes | The Columbus Dispatch. In it, Columbus Dispatch reports that:

After more than half a century, the federal fund that built many of the nation's highways and paid to keep them in order is going broke.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Columbus Dispatch.

First Prev
of 9
Next Last
Tony

Chillicothe, OH

#163 Jul 24, 2011
Kosmik wrote:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and PROVIDE for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
And when that as written, federal taxes were to be paid by the states, in proportion to their numbers... in other words, PER CAPITA.(Equal rights, equal vote, equal responsibility... seems perfectly logical to me).
I would have to ask you to define what you mean by 'service areas' that you feel countries should be
"Wherever you go, there you are." The "government" exists to serve and protect you while you're there, no matter how you came to be there (some of this is already in place... it is illegal to murder an illegal immigrant, for example). The concept that some people have that you should have less or different rights based upon where you were born is appalling! And given that the people who originally came to this country were born somewhere else, it seems hypocritical as well. "We came here and set up this country, but now that we're here, you have to jump through our hoops to get in" seems right to you? Smacks of "I got mine, screw you", to me.
and as well what the local laws should be that you feel we should follow.
When in Rome... What the residents vote on as long as it doesn't violate a legitimate liberty of another.
I too feel that government should be a service area. It's probably the services that we will disagree on.
Less the actual services and more to how they are paid for. The military protects all citizens equally so should be paid for equally by all. City water, on the other hand, is used more by some people than others, so should be paid for by those who use it more, and shouldn't be subsidized by people who don't live in that city. Most government services can be divided thusly (those that can be metered and those that can't). Some have components of both... Take EMS for example. There's a standby and equipment component that should be shared by everyone, but when they go on a run, the costs for that run should be paid for by the person the run is for.

Kosmik

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#164 Jul 24, 2011
Tony wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you forget? Insurrection CREATED this country! Oh, wait, didn't England say we "didn't have the right" do do that? Gee, I guess this government is illegitimate, isn't it?
<quoted text>
It does? where? The second amendment spells out how the people should deal with a government that's doing them wrong, maybe you're confused.
Go to your militia meeting or polish your guns, I really don't care which. You have called those who disagree with you by using logic and common sense 'bullies' and have threatened violence.

Kosmik

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#165 Jul 24, 2011
Tony wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you forget? Insurrection CREATED this country! Oh, wait, didn't England say we "didn't have the right" do do that? Gee, I guess this government is illegitimate, isn't it?
<quoted text>
It does? where? The second amendment spells out how the people should deal with a government that's doing them wrong, maybe you're confused.
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

You know, I thought at first you might be a thoughtful person with an interesting viewpoint. Now it's apparent that you're just a willfully ignorant one.

Kosmik

Since: Sep 10

Columbus, OH

#166 Jul 24, 2011
Out in the Country wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? When did I say I had a right to determine on my own what taxes I would pay? Example please.
But, if you are referring to me advocating and fighting to change tax policy, of course I have the right to do so.
<quoted text>
You have an active imagination, only surpassed by your willingness to put words in other people's mouths. I never said I believed that, nor wished that. Perhaps you can show me where I said there were no income taxes before 1913? Examples please.
<quoted text>
Whereas before you were putting words into my mouth, now you gloss over history and put words into the Framers' mouths. The preamble to the Constitution does NOT use the word "provide". It uses the word "promote" which is entirely different. The use of the word "provide" is related to defense.
<quoted text>
Sure! I am not a government carebear that requires somebody to tuck me in at night. I love freedom over the slavery of somebody holding my hand through life.
<quoted text>
Some examples of what you are talking about here would be useful.
But, as I said in my prior post, I believe in something called Subsidiarity, so this may not be incompatible with my prior stated belief systems.
<quoted text>
And, what exactly did Teddy Roosevelt do to lead you to believe he created welfare? Especially without the 16th amendment. Some examples would be nice.
Social responsibility? I have no need to argue against it, because there is no legal obligation upon any US citizen to do it via government in the first place. Therefore, there is nothing to argue against.
<quoted text>
Subjective? Hardly. There are two types of rights: Negative Rights and Positive Rights. Negative rights are what you cannot do to me. Positive Rights are things I am entitled to have.
The Bill of Rights are Negative Rights. You cannot suppress my speach. You cannot take my guns. Etc.
Obamacare is an example of people believing in Positive Rights (i.e. I have a "right" to health care).
The role of government is to enforce Negative Rights. It needs to be out of the Positive Rights business.
Yes, Congress does think differently because Congress has been filled, on many occasions with liberals that believe we are all better off if "experts" guided our lives and determined what was "best" for us.
But, the opinions of Congress are quite irrelevant, because Congress is not the Sovereign entity of the United States.
What is the Sovereign entity? The People. We can change anything we want, to whatever we want, whenever we want.
Freedom is the key my friend. And, it is coming, whether you like it or not.
I read about half of your post and it became painfully obvious that you can't remember the words that you, yourself wrote. I have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with one who constantly contradicts themselves in order to soothe their own ego. I don't need to provide you with examples, just go back and read your own posts.
Tony

Chillicothe, OH

#167 Jul 24, 2011
Out in the Country wrote:
.
But, as I said in my prior post, I believe in something called Subsidiarity, so this may not be incompatible with my prior stated belief systems.
I didn't know it had a name. Thanks.
Tony

Chillicothe, OH

#168 Jul 24, 2011
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
Go to your militia meeting or polish your guns, I really don't care which. You have called those who disagree with you by using logic and common sense 'bullies'
I was born. I had no choice as to where or when. By what "logical and common sense" principle do you claim the right to rule over me or take the fruits of my labor if it's not "might makes right"?

Your "I really don't care" reply is your way of saying you cannot answer the question without painting yourself into a corner.
and have threatened violence.
Spelling out consequences is not the same as threatening violence.
I can guarantee that I have or will never commit any act of violence except to defend myself or others against violence. It is people who think more like you do, that government should have an iron fist, who have the longer history of violently quashing dissenting voices... though not always in public view.
Out in the Country

Pleasantville, OH

#169 Jul 24, 2011
Kosmik wrote:
<quoted text>
I read about half of your post and it became painfully obvious that you can't remember the words that you, yourself wrote. I have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with one who constantly contradicts themselves in order to soothe their own ego. I don't need to provide you with examples, just go back and read your own posts.
Let's see - you accuse me of stating false things, but can never show where I did. One would assume that if you accuse somebody of false statements that at least a line or two of said statement would remain in your memory, given that you just used it to accuse the person.

You keep saying I contradict myself, yet again, offer no proof.

This is typical liberal behavior. And, I'm afraid I'm going to have to take back my statement above where I agreed that you are not a liberal. You most certainly are. There is no doubt now.

And, that gives me great relief, as I was terrified that my ability to detect liberals based upon contextual pattern matching had failed in your case, but now with this post and your prior one, all is better now.
Out in the Country

Pleasantville, OH

#170 Jul 24, 2011
Tony wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't know it had a name. Thanks.
No problem. Subsidiarity is a beautiful system, focusing on individual effort first, then expanding outward from there. If we actually used it, we could maximize freedoms, eliminate government welfare programs, and at the same time handle exceptional tragic human cases with the full power of the government if need be.

It is a win-win-win system with no downsides at all, unless you are a big government person that wants to dehumanize our fellow citizens.
Tony

Chillicothe, OH

#171 Jul 24, 2011
Out in the Country wrote:
<quoted text>
No problem. Subsidiarity is a beautiful system, focusing on individual effort first, then expanding outward from there. If we actually used it, we could maximize freedoms, eliminate government welfare programs, and at the same time handle exceptional tragic human cases with the full power of the government if need be.
It is a win-win-win system with no downsides at all, unless you are a big government person that wants to dehumanize our fellow citizens.
Some people just can't stand what they are not in direct control of...

Control freaks. They're on both sides of the aisle... One side wants to take what I've earned and give it to someone who didn't so they won't "compete". And the other side wants to shove its "values" down everyone's throats.
Enos

Chillicothe, OH

#172 Jul 25, 2011
It is the nature of corrupt people to seek out places where they can ply their corrupt ways in relative obscurity. ANY large group is subject to being infiltrated, and the bigger it is, the more corrupt elements will find their way in. Churches... schools... businesses... governments... none is immune.

That's one reason small, decentralized groups are better. The corrupt are more likely to stand out and be detected (another reason is that it's better to spread out your resources so they don't all get hit by disaster at once).

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Sherrod Brown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News When Will Sanders Surrender? Jun 8 Rev Don Wildmoan 6
News Kasich far stronger than Trump against Clinton,... Mar '16 Whoop day it isth 85
News Democrats push SEC nominees on corporate politi... Mar '16 Le Jimbo 3
News In Ohio, Clinton opposes Obama auto parts trade... Mar '16 NAFTAJobsGone 2
News UPDATE 1-U.S. Senate banking panel approves Szu... Mar '16 Le Jimbo 1
News Obama bans US imports of slave-produced goods Feb '16 Synque 9
News Pressure grows on Warren to endorse a Democrat Jan '16 Goonsquad 20
More from around the web