I mean, what's left of it.
Posted on 03/06/2006 7:43:08 PM PST by elkfersupper
I would rather have public roads, but they don't exist anymore. They're all government roads.
If faced with the choice of toll roads and government roads with armed revenue enhancement agents lurking everywhere looking for some sort of "Mother, may I" infraction, I would rather have toll roads.
Perhaps more people should try doing this to protest.
I watched that film clip on broadcast television. The show also had three of the students that thought up and created the event.
I read your comment on the other thread and some of the replies to it and then some.
Most of the obstacles to using the drive-55 method of protest could be overcome by organization and planning by the protesters doing the driving.
For example, where the left lane is strictly for passing, have 6 or more cars in the left lane all passing the co-protestor driving the car to the right by a measly one-mile-per-hour faster speed.
Most cities have an eye-in-the-sky helicopter that has a camera crew that gives traffic reports during rush hour and for other things like accidents and.... drive-55 protestors. It's their job, how could they not report major congestion/traffic snarl.
Figure out ahead of time how long it would take the helicopter to arrive at the location of the protest and adjust the start time accordingly. At the properly calculated time call the eye-in-the-sky office and inform them of major congestion at "X" location. Perhaps stating that it appear to be caused by some type of protest.
Could have a person driving one of the protestors driving one of the cars call it in on a cell phone. Get on the CB radio and announce the event as it's happening.
The objective is to get media coverage of the protest and its cause. Perhaps get a witness to the protest on a local morning talk show, TV and/or radio.
Witness: "Yeah I was stuck behind one of the protestors. A sign in the back window said: I'm driving 68mph, if you get a speeding ticket the ticket will cost you $30 -- you'll pay an extra $275 that goes toward assistant state prosecutor longevity pay and saving the Whales. The protestors have a point. Still, I was late for work because of it."
How about this: Ted Kennedy wants to take away my 2nd amendment right to carry a gun that protects you from criminals that don't respect your rights or life.
Or, the designated spokesperson for the protestors could contact a trusted reporter to convey the protestor's message while protecting the identity of the source.
You will need to take the form that was mailed to you in to the tax office. Between 9-5 on normal business days. DO NOT drive the vehicle with the expired tag. You must provide proof of financial responsibility (a bond or insurance). You will be required to sign an affidavit that you have not received a citation for the expired registration. You will also be required to sign an affidavit as to whether you have driven the vehicle since the tags expired. Think very carefully when signing these. You may incriminate yourself, and get the opportunity to pay some (more)surcharges!
Of course it did, that's what I'm here for.
Just pulling your leg, don't blow a gasket.
Don't mind me . . . I'm a little slow on the draw sometimes. LOL.
I am sick of scum-bag politicians whining that they don't get enough revenue. These crooks have so many new streams of revenue that did not exist 10, 20 or 30 years ago, such as cell phone taxes and cable TV taxes. No matter. It is never enough. We need to bring back tarring and feathering for any politician who even thinks of a new tax.
I despise that term. There is no such thing as a "cash starved government." They are all cash Gluttens --- every damn one of them.
There is no amount of cash they can not spend and then claim to be hungry for more. You can not possibly give them all the cash they desire because their is no limit to their desires. Like any individual with an addiction, they will always want more and more and more.
I've always thought social engineering by tax law beat it by legislation hands down.
It's not even about "cutting spending." In most jurisdictions, tax revenues automatically increase in line with the economy and population. In other words, they get more money without doing anything. But that increase is not enough for them. They are always looking at ways to "enhance revenue." Reducing spending is not even on the table. It all about the rate of spending growth which in most governments is always several points beyond economic growth.
Government is a revenue glutton. Now matter how much it gets, it is never enough. It can not be satisfied.
Correct you are. Thirty years ago, they promised that if we only had income tax, others taxes would go away.
It never happened. All the other taxes have increased right along with the increasing income tax.
A public road IS a government road. Otherwise, it is a private road.
Not exactly. We used to have public roads that belonged to the public. Now they belong to the government.
A private road is neither a public road nor a government road. It's privately-owned.
If they "belong to the public," they belong to the government. If they do not belong to the government, then they are owned by a private entity. Said entity may consist of one or more individuals.
Nope, the government separated itself from the public interest quite awhile back.
Used to be, the public owned the roads and the government maintained them.
Now, the government owns the roads.
Otherwise, how does one explain the content of this news article?
You think the public wants all these surcharges for silly nanny-state traffic violations?
The only way the governments get away with it is incrementalism and picking us off one at a time.
In other words, in a long-off and mythical past, you got something for nothing.
News flash: TANSTAAFL.
That's why I would rather have every road be a toll road, instead of random criminalization of the users.
But politicians don't have the courage to do that. They prefer these sneaky taxes.
Last time I got a seatbelt violation, I deducted the fine on my federal tax return as "state and local taxes", 'cause that's what it is.
A chicken$h*t way to raise revenue.
I mean, what's left of it.
I've always thought social engineering by tax law beat it by legislation hands down.
That doesn't answer the question at post 49: Do you think social engineering is a valid and proper thing for government to do?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.