LTE in Suncook Valley Sun

[MaineShark]

State Senator John S. Barnes Jr. wrote a letter that appeared in the August 23 issue of the Suncook Valley Sun:

I am frustrated and disgusted.  Yesterday, August 13, 2006, the Irving gas station, Blue Canoe, on Route 4 in Northwood, was selling gas at 2.959 a gallon.  Approximately fifteen miles away, the Irving station, Blue Canoe, in Raymond, was selling gas for 3.02 a gallon.

I imagine the same truck delivers to both stations.  I am not picking on Irving because this is happening in other gas stations in our state as well.  I just want to compare apples to oranges.

It seems to me that the Irving station in Raymond is making 0.07 a gallon more than the one in Northwood.  Is this price gouging?  According to Webster?s Dictionary; Extortion.

I wish we could do something about this in our New Hampshire Legislature, but I think it has to happen in Washington.  I am sending a copy of this to Irving Oil; perhaps they can give us an explanation.  Enough is enough!

Sincerely,
Senator John. S. Barnes, Jr.
District 17

Now, needless to say, I wasn't going to leave that alone, and they printed my letter in the September 6th issue...

I am writing in response to Senator John S. Barnes Junior?s letter in the August 23 edition of the Sun.  Senator Barnes? website says that he has been a small business owner, which leaves me somewhat puzzled as to how he could have missed learning of the concept of supply and demand.  The price charged at a particular station will reflect the demand for its product.  Want the Raymond Irving station to charge less for gasoline?  Stop buying there.  If people won?t buy at the price they ask, they?ll lower the price.  As long as people are buying at a level that makes that price a profitable one, then that?s the price the store will charge.

And can we please be spared the melodrama?  Extortion?  Until the manager of the Raymond Irving station shows up on my doorstep slapping a baseball bat into his hand and demanding I buy from him, I wouldn?t call that extortion.

Maybe Senator Barnes is just worried that people will think too hard on the fact that the Federal government makes 18.2 cents and the State of New Hampshire charges 20.6 cents.  The government gets 38.8 cents, and the station is averaging 8 cents.  Who, precisely, is profiteering?  The profits made by the companies that refine, transport, market, and sell the gasoline to consumers are small in comparison to what the overseas producers and the government make.

If Senator Barnes really wishes that the Legislature could offer a solution to high gasoline prices, I suggest that he look to the real culprits.  If we chopped our state gasoline tax by 3.7 cents, we would drop past Oklahoma and be second-lowest in the nation.  If that wouldn?t help our small businesses and attract more, I don?t know what would!

Joe Brown
Northwood, NH

So, seeing as it's Wednesday again, I'll check the mail later and see if he has any response...

Me, I was thinking he needed to be replaced, just based on this nonsense, and then I was doing some catch-up reading today, and found his name as one of the anti-anti-Real ID cowards, so I guess that just confirms me opinion...

Joe

[Kat Kanning]

Nice!

[CNHT]

Me, I was thinking he needed to be replaced, just based on this nonsense, and then I was doing some catch-up reading today, and found his name as one of the anti-anti-Real ID cowards, so I guess that just confirms me opinion...

Joe

Well, now that some will try to use the Claremont issue as an excuse to institute an income tax in NH, it would be very bad time to  throw out the man who was solely responsible for keeping the income tax OUT of NH the last time it was tried..

I wish some of you newbies would realize this!

[Kat Kanning]

The only way we'll be safe is to throw them all out and don't replace them.   I wish you oldtimers would realize this 

[CNHT]

The only way we'll be safe is to throw them all out and don't replace them.   I wish you oldtimers would realize this 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'don't replace them'. Do you mean as in 'no' representation?

[MaineShark]

Well, now that some will try to use the Claremont issue as an excuse to institute an income tax in NH, it would be very bad time to  throw out the man who was solely responsible for keeping the income tax OUT of NH the last time it was tried..

I wish some of you newbies would realize this!

Maybe we could replace him with someone who is anti-tax?

As far as I've been able to tell, Barnes is far from being "anti-tax."  If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested to look at it, seeing as how this fool supposedly represents me...

Joe

[CNHT]

Well, now that some will try to use the Claremont issue as an excuse to institute an income tax in NH, it would be very bad time to  throw out the man who was solely responsible for keeping the income tax OUT of NH the last time it was tried..

I wish some of you newbies would realize this!

Maybe we could replace him with someone who is anti-tax?

As far as I've been able to tell, Barnes is far from being "anti-tax."  If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested to look at it, seeing as how this fool supposedly represents me...

Joe

Well it's a long story, but a few years ago we came dangerously close to an income tax. It was a real cliff hanger. As you know, if we got an income or sales tax, that would be the END to the NH advantage. Barnes was the one who saved us.

I don't know who you could get to oppose him who would be better on the other issue of your concern but it's wise to consider these things so that you won't throw out the baby with the bathwater so to speak, until and unless you DO have a better replacement. These things take time.

The Claremont issue has people screaming that we need an income tax to make education funding 'fair'. Thus we must be vigilant again.

[aries]

The only way we'll be safe is to throw them all out and don't replace them.   I wish you oldtimers would realize this 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'don't replace them'. Do you mean as in 'no' representation?

We're getting representation?

HA

[Kat Kanning]

No representation.  No government. They're evil.

[CNHT]

The only way we'll be safe is to throw them all out and don't replace them.   I wish you oldtimers would realize this 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'don't replace them'. Do you mean as in 'no' representation?

We're getting representation?

HA

Well I am just asking for a clarification, so I can know whether this is a serious suggestion or just a reactionary comment.

The sales and income tax with regard to the school funding issue are going to be the next big battle.

I've already gotten email from 'Frank' who admonishes that there will never be adherence to the Constitution which says the state has no role in providing education, with which he agrees I assume.

As long as you keep encouraging these socialists with your support, that is what you will get, more socialism. Once they have your money, forget any of the other freedoms my friend.

[MaineShark]

Maybe we could replace him with someone who is anti-tax?

As far as I've been able to tell, Barnes is far from being "anti-tax."  If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested to look at it, seeing as how this fool supposedly represents me...

Well it's a long story, but a few years ago we came dangerously close to an income tax. It was a real cliff hanger. As you know, if we got an income or sales tax, that would be the END to the NH advantage. Barnes was the one who saved us.

Uh, I asked for evidence, not a repeat of the same statement.  I like long stories...

As long as you keep encouraging these socialists with your support, that is what you will get, more socialism. Once they have your money, forget any of the other freedoms my friend.

You mean socialists like Barnes?  Just because he belongs to Socialist Party B instead of Socialist Party A, doesn't mean he isn't a socialist...

Joe

[CNHT]

Joe, the story is quite simple. There were enough votes to pass an income tax. Barnes rallied the forces and got it stopped.

Is it against the 'religion' to mention that someone did something GOOD while he is being trashed for something else?

It's just a fact I'm asking you to consider. I'm not saying he's perfect, or even wonderful or not part of socialist party B.

I'm just relating some history.

[MaineShark]

Joe, the story is quite simple. There were enough votes to pass an income tax. Barnes rallied the forces and got it stopped.

Is it against the 'religion' to mention that someone did something GOOD while he is being trashed for something else?

It's just a fact I'm asking you to consider. I'm not saying he's perfect, or even wonderful or not part of socialist party B.

I'm just relating some history.

It's not a fact until I see evidence.  I'm certainly willing to consider the evidence, but I need to actually see that, to do it.  All the evidence that I've actually seen, so far, is negative.  And I did some research before I even took the time to write my original LTE (which is why it took two weeks to show up, rather than one), just to make sure I wasn't trashing someone who really didn't deserve it.

I'm a thoroughly rational person, which means I hold nothing to be above revision; so, I'm perfectly willing to revise my opinion of Barnes, if I am given reason to do so.  Simply telling me that I should, does not qualify as such.

As of right now, the evidence that I've seen tells me the exact opposite, and I would expect Barnes to be leading the charge to pass an income tax.  If you can show me otherwise, I'm all ears...

Joe

[CNHT]

Joe, the story is quite simple. There were enough votes to pass an income tax. Barnes rallied the forces and got it stopped.

Is it against the 'religion' to mention that someone did something GOOD while he is being trashed for something else?

It's just a fact I'm asking you to consider. I'm not saying he's perfect, or even wonderful or not part of socialist party B.

I'm just relating some history.

It's not a fact until I see evidence.  I'm certainly willing to consider the evidence, but I need to actually see that, to do it.  All the evidence that I've actually seen, so far, is negative.  And I did some research before I even took the time to write my original LTE (which is why it took two weeks to show up, rather than one), just to make sure I wasn't trashing someone who really didn't deserve it.

I'm a thoroughly rational person, which means I hold nothing to be above revision; so, I'm perfectly willing to revise my opinion of Barnes, if I am given reason to do so.  Simply telling me that I should, does not qualify as such.

As of right now, the evidence that I've seen tells me the exact opposite, and I would expect Barnes to be leading the charge to pass an income tax.  If you can show me otherwise, I'm all ears...

Joe

Ah but you see I'm not asking you to change your opinion of him, but just to be informed of what has gone on in the past before you came here. It's just more information is all. And I think it's an important issue for you to know about. Passing on this information is neither condemnation nor approval of him.

Does that make sense?

[MaineShark]

Ah but you see I'm not asking you to change your opinion of him, but just to be informed of what has gone on in the past before you came here. It's just more information is all. And I think it's an important issue for you to know about. Passing on this information is neither condemnation nor approval of him.

Does that make sense?

No.  My opinion of someone is based on who that person is, which dictates what that person has done in the past.  What else could it be based on?

I don't "know about" the issue without evidence.  Saying that he "was solely responsible for keeping the income tax OUT of NH" is a pretty strong claim, and I'm not inclined to believe such claims without evidence.  I've seen no real evidence that this was the case, and I've seen a lot to the contrary.

Do you have evidence to support that claim, or not?

Joe