HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot's proposed gas tax
Date: 10 Oct 92 02:32:43 GMT
Organization: ACME products - artillery division

nancy@hayduke (Nancy Feagans) writes:

> In article <1992Oct2.152835.6903@photon.com> jbn@photon.com (Joe Naiman) writ
> >
> >In case you missed this morning's Wall Street Journal, Henry Ross Pee-rot
> >wants to have a Federal gasoline tax of 50 cents a gallon.
> >
> >Just thought you might like to be aware of this.
> >
> >Joe Naiman
> 
> Joe:  why didn't you also mention that the Perot gas tax proposal was
> for 10 cents a year over the next five years?
>  
> Like another poster stated, all you have to do is to compare how much
> we pay per gallon as opposed to other countries.

Should we envy their other negative points also? One of the nice things
about the US is that we have one of the highest standards of living in
the world.


--
"A leopard never changes his stripes" 
           -- Al Gore, candidate for vice-president
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: welty@cabot.balltown.cma.COM (richard welty)
Subject: Re: Does This Law Make Sense
Organization: New York State Institute for Sebastian Cabot Studies
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:49:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.032010.15714@informix.com> aland@informix.com (Colonel Panic) writes:
>>                                            An NRA instructor told me
>>that if the gun is on the seat in plain view, it is not concealed, and
>>it's legal to transport it that way if the gun is unloaded.

>This appears to be a loophole in the law.  If stopped, I'd *strongly* 
>recommend that you keep both hands on the wheel, specifically indicate the
>presence of the weapon to the officer, and comply with any special
> instructions
>(please, no Constitutional arguments).  An officer could be spooked by
>any other behavior.

i think that if the weapon is in plain view, there are no constitutional
issues, given recent supreme court rulings; if the officer can see the
weapon, then he may take its presence into account, and handle
the traffic stop accordingly.  i suggest that if you are transporting
a gun in plain view, that you be very nice to mister police officer,
or the consequences could ruin your whole day.

i also suggest that any driver learn out to pull over properly when
being stopped; you can do a great deal just in the interval right after
the red blinking lights go on to reduce the officer's blood pressure;
this would be all the more important if you knew that he was going to
look in the car and see a weapon.

i suppose someone will ask, so here is how to pull over (information
from _A Speeder's Guide to Avoiding Tickets_, by James Eagan, sergeant,
New York State Police, retired):

first, signal the officer with a wave to indicate that you see him.
if you are in any lane other than the right hand lane, then only
move over when there is plenty of space to the right, and in such
fashion that no gymnastics on the part of the officer are necessary
to match position with you; no jumps on the brake, no cutting into small
gaps in traffic.  it is ok to speed up a little to reach a gap (believe
it or not); officers usually don't mind this in the least -- provided
you've already given him a wave.

when stopping in the break down lane, don't do any maximal braking
manuvers; just smoothly slow down and stop.  keep well to the right
of the break down lane, so the officer will not have to stand out in
traffic.  they hate that.  keep your hands on the wheel while the
officer approaches; if you fumble for your license and registration,
well, he doesn't know what you're digging up -- it might be a handgun.

all this stuff ads up; cops will often decide how the stop is going to
go based on all of this, even before they get to the driver's window.

for drivers in places where you drive on the wrong side of the road,
just swap left & right.

cheers,
  richard
-- 
richard welty                            518-393-7228
welty@cabot.balltown.cma.com
  ``if you can read this, mario, you're too close''
    -- bumper sticker seen on a CART safety truck
From: colombo@bronco.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Red Turning Signals
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:50:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: bronco.1992Oct12.155013.1
Organization: Fermilab Computing Division

In article <1992Oct12.102608@IASTATE.EDU>, oyalcin@IASTATE.EDU (Onur Yalcin) writes:
> I am just getting used to traffic in th US. Most of my driving experience has
> been in Europe.
> 
> I am getting used to large cars that stop first and signal after when they
> decide to turn. 
> 
> I can not understand why American car producers insist on installing the turning
> signal, the brake lamp and the taillights all together. You can hardly tell
> whether someone is signalling, braking, or emergency signalling, at first
> glimpse, since thay are all red.
> 
> It can be argued that it looks aesthetic on some cars, but it definitely is not
> functional, and it is ergonomically wrong.

You're right, but we do have a Federal law (passed in 1986?) that
requires a third brake light mounted higher, like the rear deck or
roof.  My truck is older, but I just installed one on it.  An added
feature of mine is that is blinks with the turn signals.  In either
case, there is no provision for it to be on with the taillights.
This way when it lights up, it is telling you something.

-- 
 ___________________________________________________________________________
 *****  *   *  From the e-net desk of: Rick Colombo CD/DCD/DSG    *    *
 *      **  *  Fermi Nat'l Acc'l Lab   708-840-8225 Fermilab     * *   *
 ***    * * *  P.O. Box 500   MS 369   Feynman Computer Center  *****  *
 *      *  **  Batavia, Ill. USA 60510 Colombo@fnal.fnal.gov    *   *  *****
 *    Of course I speak for Fermilab, Congress and the President... NOT !!!
Xref: sparky rec.autos.driving:5965 alt.autos.antique:1941
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,alt.autos.antique
Subject: Re: Get rid of old cars, was...Ross perot gas tax.....
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:46:43 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: rec.autos.driving
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In rec.autos.driving, whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:

>drive a 1981 Triumph and when I finish rebuilding my '68, that will again
>be my daily driver.  Reason I drive those cars is because I can fix them
>myself and I intend to do just that for as long as possible.

You can fix anything as long as you buy the manuals. Engines haven't
changed that much, although the electronics are a bit tougher. Then
again, the manuals are written so that a high school drop-out can follow
them, so surely you can too. The only things you really need is a good
multi-meter, preferably an analog one. (Digital makes it a little hard
to observe fluctuations, but it can be done.) All that "you need $100k
of computer crap t figure your car out is baloney.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: nau@ssesco.com (William Nau)
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot's proposed gas tax
Organization: SSESCO
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:50:17 GMT

>To repeat my point for the comprehension-impaired:  

>A lot of Chicken Littles on this newsgroup seem to be rushing around
>proclaiming that the sky will fall if gasoline's retail price was
>increased by $.50/gallon.  Their predictions of doom lose all
>credibility when confronted with the historical reality of the early
>1980s, when such high prices actually were in effect at a time when
>the economy was booming its way out of a recession.

>Note that I offer this merely as a dose of realism to the Doom
>Brigades.  I myself also happen to oppose Perot's plan, but I refuse
>to base my opposition on a demonstrably bogus premise.

I hope the rest of you will forgive me for responding to such a
pathetic attack.  The name calling really helps you get your point
across.

Ever consider that it may not necessarly be if people can afford
it (which is black and white.  you don't know either), but wether
it is right or not.  Regardless of if people can afford it, it is
a regressive tax.  Is it right to implement a regressive tax?  Is
it right to tax gas to pay off something unrelated to the use of
gas (we need to get a better picture of exactly what his real
intentions for the money are)?  Because other countries pay inflated
prices, is it right that we should be forced to pay inflated
prices as well?

Is it right?  This is certainly subjective and we can probably
argue about it until we explode.
From: c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot's proposed gas tax
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:52:03 GMT
Organization: Delco Electronics Corp.

In article <1992Oct8.050726.6978@beaver.cs.washington.edu> tsang@cs.washington.edu (Donald Tsang) writes:
>(1) How are we defining "regressive tax"?  At what point does it become
>a "neutral" or "progressive" tax?

A regressive tax is a tax that places more of the burden to lower incomes.
A flat percentage tax is not regressive (mostly). A tax on stuff that costs
the same for either rich or poor is regressive.

Remember the argument I used earlier. A doctor driving an infiniti q45
and a $16K/year mother of two driving a 10 year old beater. Both get 
similar mpg (no joke, sorry q45 owners :-)). They both drive similar
distances, burn similar amount of gas, hence their gas bill is the same
each month. Guess who's going to notice the extra $30/month.

>Is a "use tax" like +$0.10/gallon on gas really regressive?  Many of
>the (non-student) working poor I know up here in Seattle get along
>without cars (not that I claim to know very many), so they clearly
>don't have to pay any more.

Won't work in the midwest. My favorite quote of all times regarding mass
transit was in Lafayette, LA (college town). The bus company raised fares
from $.25 to $.75, and the response of the head honcho of the bus co. was
"let them take a cab". (no kidding, 1983 era).

>I guess the real question is: "Is owning and operating an automobile in
>the US considered a luxury or a necessity?"
>
>The answer certainly differs with geography.

True. How many people live in urban areas with good, affordable (see above)
mass transit vs. in rural / semi rural areas?

>(2) Would CONGRESS support such a tax, especially the Rep's from
>Automobile and Gasoline producing states?  I mean, really.  Even
>if he's elected, will this tax proposal ever come to fruition?

Nope. I find it ironic that Senator Bryan (sp?) that pushes for higher
CAFE comes from a state where all state income comes from gambling
(nevada). He'd vote for it. Not many others would.

>(3) Is this entire thread really relevant to rec.autos.driving?  Does
>this newsgroup's charter include "discussion of the demographics of
>used and/or fuel-inefficient automobiles, and the economic impact on
>new taxes on same"?

the 'driving' in rec.autos.driving does not refer to disk drives, device
drivers, or pile drivers. 

>Purely my observation and opinion: gas is insanely cheap in the US, and
>this has created a reliance on automobiles *and* gasoline.  If we
>change this reliance, it will hurt a lot of people, but the outcome
>will almost certainly be for the better (ecologically, economically in
>the long run, etc).

Famous last words.

Spiros
-- 
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos                    c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Software Technology, Delco Electronics       striantafyll@kosds1.gm.hac.com
GM Hughes Electronics, Kokomo, IN 46904      [A Different Kind of Disclaimer]
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: tsang@cs.washington.edu (Donald Tsang)
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot's proposed gas tax
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 05:07:26 GMT

Sorry to interrupt the wonderful arguments about foreign countries'
gas prices, the working poor, interesting anecdotes about relatives
overseas, etc, but I have a couple of questions:

(1) How are we defining "regressive tax"?  At what point does it become
a "neutral" or "progressive" tax?

Clearly, a flat dollar-amount tax is regressive.  Equally clearly,
"half of the money you make over $200K" is progressive.  Is a 5%
increase in the US Federal Income Tax rate regressive, neutral, or
progressive?  What if it were "compute as if you were making 5% more
than you currently are"?

Is a "use tax" like +$0.10/gallon on gas really regressive?  Many of
the (non-student) working poor I know up here in Seattle get along
without cars (not that I claim to know very many), so they clearly
don't have to pay any more.

I guess the real question is: "Is owning and operating an automobile in
the US considered a luxury or a necessity?"

The answer certainly differs with geography.


(2) Would CONGRESS support such a tax, especially the Rep's from
Automobile and Gasoline producing states?  I mean, really.  Even
if he's elected, will this tax proposal ever come to fruition?


(3) Is this entire thread really relevant to rec.autos.driving?  Does
this newsgroup's charter include "discussion of the demographics of
used and/or fuel-inefficient automobiles, and the economic impact on
new taxes on same"?


----

Purely my observation and opinion: gas is insanely cheap in the US, and
this has created a reliance on automobiles *and* gasoline.  If we
change this reliance, it will hurt a lot of people, but the outcome
will almost certainly be for the better (ecologically, economically in
the long run, etc).

I'd pay a $3.00/gallon gas tax.  Sure, that would mean I'd walk, bike,
or bus just about everywhere, and my car would become a real luxury
item, one of the first to go in a money crunch.  But with increased
telecommunications, I don't really _need_ to be anywhere very often.

Sure, this is untrue of the "working poor".  That needs to be changed,
too.  And we certainly need more/better public transportation.


-- 
Donald Tsang                    "Ho!  Haha!  Guard!  Turn!  Parry!  Dodge!
tsang@june.cs.washington.edu     Spin!  Ha!  Thrust!"
..!uw-beaver!june!tsang                       -- Robin Hood Daffy
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot's proposed gas tax
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:09:21 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1687EB65A.BKD@USLVM.USL.EDU> BKD@USLVM.USL.EDU (Brian K. Dore') writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.152835.6903@photon.com>
>jbn@photon.com (Joe Naiman) writes:
> 
>>In case you missed this morning's Wall Street Journal, Henry Ross Pee-rot
>>wants to have a Federal gasoline tax of 50 cents a gallon.
>>
> 
>I don't mind paying an extra 50 cents a gallon tomorrow as long as every
>penny goes twoards road construction and maintainance.  Better roads would
>probably save me a good chunk of that.  Especially here in Louisiana where
>bad roads bend rims, suspension parts, and sheet metal.  (Drive a sports
>car on I-10 west out of Baton Rouge sometime and you'll see what I mean.)
>Not to mention the reduced risk of accidents that come with better roads
>and bridges...
> 
>Brian

problem is that it would not go to roads etc.  every time we give those 
weasels more money...they spend even more than we give them.  last nites
debate had a good question about what would the candidates do to rebuild our
infrastructure...roads/rail/electronic communications etc.  they all weaseled
around answering directly.>
From: jdonsbac@cvbnet.prime.com (Jeff Donsbach)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Stubborn Cyclists
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:36:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computervision, Bedford MA

In article <1as6seINNbfr@gilligan.East.Sun.COM>, mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM
(Mike Roncadori) writes:
|> So, for each year (on a bicycle), it should be something like
|> this:
|> 
|> 		2.00	($2.00 per yr for driver's license)
|> 		20.00	($20.00 per yr for vehicle placards)
|> 		35.00	(Minimum Personal Property tax)
|> 		20.00	(County sticker fee)
|> 
|> In Virginia, your right to the road should cost $72.00, annually,
|> but it costs nothing. Therefore, the idea that a biker pays for
|> his right to the road is false, at least in Virginia. You may
|> pay income tax, but you definitely don't pay all the fees that
|> every driver does.
|> 
|> -- Mike

I hope you don't think ALL of that $72 is going toward the upkeep of roads,
do you? If it did, the roads and bridges in this country wouldn't be in as
bad a shape as they are. Granted that a portion of that $72 goes to
the costs of running the DMV, etc. But, I think it's safe to say that the
majority of that money goes into other areas that have nothing to do with cars
or roads. The same goes for gas taxes, both state and federal. It wouldn't
surprise me if the actual amount of that $72 that went into Highway related
funds was only about $10. That's probably being generous.

Irrespective of whether they PAY for their share of the road, cyclists
have the same right to use it as anyone else. The numbert of cyclists
that don't even own a car is definitely a minority. So the majority of
cyclists are paying the same as you or me (excepting gas taxes) and actually
helping the roads last longer.

-Jeff

-- 
=========================
Jeff Donsbach, Computervision Corp, 14 Crosby Dr. MS 5-2, Bedford, MA 01730
UUCP: {decvax|linus|sun}!cvbnet!jdonsbac | Internet: jdonsbac@cvbnet.prime.com
"10 bucks is 10 bucks" - Geddy Lee                       (soon to be CV.Com ??)
From: mike@gilligan.East.Sun.COM (Mike Roncadori)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot's proposed gas tax
Date: 9 Oct 1992 06:03:54 -0400
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Vienna, Va.
NNTP-Posting-Host: gilligan.east.sun.com

In article <23576@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM> kemasa@ghost.hac.com (Kemasa) writes:
>Why does it seem strange that Perot complained that the government was
>wasting money and then he goes on to say that we should INCREASE taxes?
>-- 

Idunno... Probably something along the lines of what would
happen in your own household.

If you want to pay off all your bills, you work extra (or take
on side jobs), and at the same time, you quit disposing of your
"disposable income".

I think the idea he has is to bring in more money, while spending
less. Then, the deficit could be paid more quickly.

Just a guess... I'm definitely no economist.

-- Mike

-----------------------------------------------------------------
My opinion - not my employer's
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: nau@ssesco.com (William Nau)
Subject: Re: solution to deficits
Organization: SSESCO
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:51:20 GMT

In article <bob1.718915339@cos>, bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
|> Driving to work today [and from observations of the last 9
|> years], it occured to me that a solution to State and Federal
|> deficits, well a partial solution, would be to stop wasting
|> all that money painting white and yellow lines on the roads.
|> 
|> Few, if any, drivers here in the DC area pay any attention
|> to them. What is the observation in other areas?

Er, they tell you where the shoulder is.  Tells you where to drive
your car.  People around MN seem to pay attention to them (in general).

What is a waste are those darn BUMP signs.  Hey, you put those things
where it's no worse than the rest of the road!  What fool determined
that this tiny bump deserves a sign where all those big ones don't?
(small compared to the cost of roads, but he started it :)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: nau@ssesco.com (William Nau)
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot's proposed gas tax
Organization: SSESCO
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:58:10 GMT

In article <23576@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM>, kemasa@ghost.hac.com (Kemasa) writes:
|> Why does it seem strange that Perot complained that the government was
|> wasting money and then he goes on to say that we should INCREASE taxes?

You noticed that too?  I'm just waiting too see what he says about that.
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: goudreau@gotham.rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot's proposed gas tax
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 04:18:58 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC

In article <1992Oct9.135457.7358@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com> c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes:
>
>>Ten years or so ago, Americans *were* paying over $1.50/gallon (in
>>1992 dollars) for their gas.  Any arguments that Perot's $0.50/gallon
>>increase would Revitalize Our Cities, Break the Backs of the Poor,
>>Destroy the Automotive Industry, End Our American Way of Life, etc.,
>>are thus simply not very plausible.
>
>Ten years ago we were not faced with much higher taxes, social security
>'contributions', state and local and property taxes, excise taxes, user
>fees, or anything of that sort. Federal taxes have gone down a bit but
>the other taxes have gone up. 

To repeat my point for the comprehension-impaired:  

A lot of Chicken Littles on this newsgroup seem to be rushing around
proclaiming that the sky will fall if gasoline's retail price was
increased by $.50/gallon.  Their predictions of doom lose all
credibility when confronted with the historical reality of the early
1980s, when such high prices actually were in effect at a time when
the economy was booming its way out of a recession.

Note that I offer this merely as a dose of realism to the Doom
Brigades.  I myself also happen to oppose Perot's plan, but I refuse
to base my opposition on a demonstrably bogus premise.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Goudreau			Data General Corporation
goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com		62 Alexander Drive	
+1 919 248 6231			Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: thomas@datamark.co.nz (Thomas Beagle)
Subject: Re: Stubborn Cyclists
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:17:24 GMT
Organization: Datamark International Ltd.

In article <1992Oct7.014801.5283@sol.UVic.CA> atovorni@engr.UVic.CA writes:
>Pedestrians should be on sidewalks where they belong, like bikers should
>be on bike paths.

What's a bike path? (Semi-rhetorical question.)

I don't know what it's like where you are, but we don't have bike paths.

>That's why your bike paths have speed limits. Real roads have speed limits
>too, and I adhere to them.

Hmmm, you adhere to the roads or the speed limits? :-)

-- 
    Thomas Beagle | thomas@datamark.co.nz  or  thomas@cavebbs.welly.gen.nz
Datamark Intl Ltd | 
 Technical Writer | I don't need a disclaimer, I live in a sane society.
From: welty@cabot.balltown.cma.COM (richard welty)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: old vs. new
Summary: was Re: Get rid of old cars, was...Ross perot gas tax
Date: 10 Oct 92 00:42:44 GMT
Organization: New York State Institute for Sebastian Cabot Studies

In article <1992Oct8.143419.10265@bsu-ucs.uucp> 01ksdavis@bsu-ucs.uucp (Rebel without a clue.) writes:
>	I also agree with the other person who said it is easier
>to work on the older cars.  All of the new ones are being designed
>so that ONLY the car dealers can work on them.

while new cars certainly require more thought to work on, i don't think
that it's been rendered impossible; you just have to be smart about it.
i am perfectly able to change head gaskets on a new alfa v-6 by myself;
it's really only marginally more difficult than on an older car (more
plumbing in the way, that's all.)  diagnosis, modifications, etc.,
just require thinking things out in advance.  you can't twiddle things
the way old-fashioned mechanics used to, this is true.  but that doesn't
mean that it's impossible.

richard
-- 
richard welty                            518-393-7228
welty@cabot.balltown.cma.com
  ``if you can read this, mario, you're too close''
    -- bumper sticker seen on a CART safety truck