Skip to comments.
Md. considers surcharge on mammoth SUVs ($750)
Bakersfield Californian ^
| 2/15/05
| AP
Posted on 02/15/2005 8:41:50 PM PST by NormsRevenge
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
To: NormsRevenge
2
posted on
02/15/2005 8:47:05 PM PST
by
Dallas59
(Bush said the "F" word 27 times January 20th, 2005!)
To: NormsRevenge
While I don't give a hoot about who drives what.
The fact remains that 60,000 pound Tractor Trailers do 80%+ of the damage to any road. The only way to fix that without charging EVERYONE is to sock it to folks that make no difference but that the state "feels" that they do.
3
posted on
02/15/2005 8:47:06 PM PST
by
Malsua
To: NormsRevenge
They mention all the luxury ones, but ignore the ordinary Suburbans and Expeditions, not to mention all those environmentally-identical full-size pickup trucks.
4
posted on
02/15/2005 8:47:17 PM PST
by
Atlas Sneezed
(Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
To: NormsRevenge
We need to link this to the mileage tax thread.
In this case you get taxed for driving a gas guzzling vehicle. In the other you get taxed because you are driving a fuel efficient vehicle.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1343593/posts
5
posted on
02/15/2005 8:48:06 PM PST
by
USNBandit
(sarcasm engaged at all times)
To: Beelzebubba
The expedition has been killed by Ford I believe, due to slow sales. For some reason , the Govt. thinks it is smarter than the people. Each person knows which car is best for him/her, the govt. should butt out of the decision making process.
6
posted on
02/15/2005 9:00:08 PM PST
by
staytrue
To: NormsRevenge
I would like to see someone design a muscle car with some technologies to improve fuel economy without sacrificing peak power. A V8 which used variable delayed intake closure and which could switch between 'normal' and 'compound' mode operation could probably yield energy efficiency at moderate power levels that was better than that of conventional smaller engines without sacrificing much if anything in the way of peak power capability.
Although the added weight of such cars would likely prevent them from getting as good fuel economy as a Honda Civic, they could nonetheless be much better than most of the SUVs on the road today. Given that I suspect many SUV buyers really want muscle cars, this would thus be a change for the better.
7
posted on
02/15/2005 9:01:18 PM PST
by
supercat
(Better to have egg on one's face than blood on one's hands.)
To: USNBandit
Just like a casino, the State always comes out ahead.......
To: NormsRevenge
Blue state Illinois already has a $175 surcharge and there's no getting around it. I thought if I bought one in Missouri I wouldn't have to pay it but if it's registered and licensed in Illinois - I still pay it.
9
posted on
02/15/2005 9:05:55 PM PST
by
Graybeard58
(Remember and pray for Spec.4 Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
To: NormsRevenge
Is this America? This is the kind of crap you expect in socialist country populated by pin-dicks and airheads (like France).
To: NormsRevenge
The DemonRAT controlled legislature is doing this to
embarrass a Republican governor and rip off more
money from the middle class. They want to show the
governor that his veto counts for nothing. So the
middle/working class of Maryland suffers. The DemonRATs of the Maryland legislature are hoping that all those who
voted for the Robert Ehrlich will get the message and vote for a Democrat next time or else more weird onerous taxes will be put in place next year at the next legislative session. (They also are doing this because they hate GW Bush and this is the only way they can lash out at him.) If it were not for Baltimore, Montgomery Co., Prince Georges Co. and Howard County Maryland would solidly Republican.
11
posted on
02/15/2005 9:15:07 PM PST
by
StormEye
To: NormsRevenge
"They pose a highway safety hazard, and they disproportionately beat up our roads and bridges,"
Oh, well then.
I'm assuming my fair state will be outlawing semis, buses and motorhomes too, right?
I know I feel much "safer" then.
12
posted on
02/15/2005 9:15:36 PM PST
by
Salamander
(Some are born to sweet delight; some are born to endless night......)
To: NormsRevenge
If they could produce data that show that these vehicles tear-up roads worse than lighter vehicles than the tax may not be a bad idea.
To: NormsRevenge
Why is my home state so screwed up?
14
posted on
02/15/2005 9:15:58 PM PST
by
Vision
(The New York Times...All the news to fit a one world government)
To: Vision
Democrats.
Any more questions?...:)
15
posted on
02/15/2005 9:18:34 PM PST
by
Salamander
(Some are born to sweet delight; some are born to endless night......)
To: lotusblos
---Is this America? This is the kind of crap you expect in socialist country populated by pin-dicks and airheads (like France).---
Like Bill Bronrott, Democrat.
16
posted on
02/15/2005 9:20:05 PM PST
by
claudiustg
(Go Sharon! Go Bush!)
To: NormsRevenge
It's those humongous dumpster trucks that are tearing up the highways.
17
posted on
02/15/2005 9:22:49 PM PST
by
timestax
To: staytrue
Umm I don't think so. I see them everywhere - they sell like hotcakes. Perhaps you are thinking of the Excursion.
The expedition has been killed by Ford I believe, due to slow sales. For some reason , the Govt. thinks it is smarter than the people. Each person knows which car is best for him/her, the govt. should butt out of the decision making process.
To: NormsRevenge
Can I register the Sherman tank that I bought last weekend at the Army-Navy Surplus Sale? My wife wants to use it as a grocery-getter. I asked her if she'd prefer a Hummer, and she slapped me.
19
posted on
02/15/2005 9:48:32 PM PST
by
scottybk
("Pure democracy is 2 tigers and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch." Benj. Franklin)
To: NormsRevenge
This certainly sounds like a "bill of attainder" designed to punish a group of people for simply owning a specific kind of vehicle. The U.S. Constitution forbids a "bill of attainder" because it amounts to punishment by legislative act without "due process".
20
posted on
02/15/2005 10:12:41 PM PST
by
Myrddin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson