Titles Unlimited -- Bail Bonds Blues?

[Bart Carter]

I think the biggest problem is that people want a 1965 car. They build a 1965 car, but can't title it as a 1965 in most states. There are a few that actually allow you to build and title a 1965 car as a 1965.

Why can't other states do that also? They can still collect the proper taxes.

In Nevada you can use a 1965 engine block in your build and not have to worry about emissions. I guess you can replace the 1965 engine later without problems.

[Cobrabill]

Since when is dodging taxes a bad thing?Hell,it's a badge of honor.
It's how this country got started.

TU violated NO laws in Ca.

But there's no money in going after a handfull of Cobra owners-is there?

Agro-1,where'd ya go?

[Specialk]

They check every year at registration time. Some people slide through, though.

Originally posted by Bart Carter




In Nevada you can use a 1965 engine block in your build and not have to worry about emissions. I guess you can replace the 1965 engine later without problems.

[weekendwarrior]

[quote]Originally posted by Bud Man


As a former resident of California, who remembers the days when that state was counted among those known for conservative viewpoints, I am truly saddened to see such a beautiful place driven into the ground, and so much of the "car culture" that California created being lost. But the last time I checked, the top offices at state and local level were ELECTED offices, not appointed.

I know all about the conservative voting blocs in the valley, and in the true "Northern California" ( and it ain't the Bay Area), and feel bad that you are living with policies that politicians you DIDN'T vote for pushed into law. Folks on this forum are car guys and gals - gear heads - and while the current major political leaders in California care about your money, they don't care about YOU. I guess there just aren't enough of you left to make a difference on election day. You DID vote, didn't you?

All that being said, you Californians still have the most beautiful beaches, best weather on the earth, a housing market that can make you rich (or poor) seemingly overnite and a generally dynamic social environment, intellectually speaking. You may not be able to drive the car you want, but life is full of trade-off's.

But you CAN take comfort that eventually most if not all of the states will adopt many - if not all - of these policies, particularly if they are revenue enhancing. Yep, even Texas and the South. Some will just take longer than others. So in the end, we're all in the same boat.......

Except you'll still have the weather.......

Bud [/QUOTE

Bud Man, I would like to shoot an AR in service rifle comp. but we already lost that right.

Of interest, Young America's Foundation 25th is being rebroadcast CSPAN2 (8:15 ET) very interesting talk by a guy named Warrior on conservative thought and responsibility.

[Gerry A.]

Ok, one last silly comment then I'll just quietly back out of this thread and let you all battle it out..

You know what I believe? I don't think the real issue in someone getting the title from TU is taxes.. tell me how many companies out there building replica's and even the original ones that are out there would meet and are build with every single smog and anti polution device required in each state of the Union in order to meet the proper titling requirements of that state. First of all each co. would have to know where the car was going which they prob do.. then the exact smog laws for that state and build each car according to those specs.. can you imagine how much extra equipment and materials they would have to carry or purchase in order to tailor each car to meet the given requirements in those cases. One heck of alot of stuff not to mention the extra bs it would take to put it all in and get it right. First of all we prob couldn't run these mega hp fire breathing V-8's that we do now and still meet those requirements not to mention the exhaust and intake changes that would have to be made. The cobra mystique alone would be run plum into the mud. In all actuallity the main reason for "titleing" these cars in the manner that TU does is so that we can actually register and own them without having to comply with each owners state anti-polution laws. becasue quite simply put these cars aren't built that way and to make them so they do would belittle making them in the first place. Oh don't get me wrong I know full well there are cars out there that are completely smog legal in their respective state and I also know there are states that don't have very many smog laws to begin with but for the most part lets face it the cobra was not meant to be a smog machine.. it was made for the race track.. I'm sure everyone in this club knows the phrase "bad news in ferarri's rear view mirror". That's what the car was built for and the replica's are meant to reflect that image or at least I think they are. So in that light taxes has very little to do with the method behind the madness of titleing said 2000 vehicle made at company x as a 1965 or 1966 ford or whatever roadster.

[Roscoe]

Tuesday, July 22, 2003With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...

Democrats Caught Plotting to Worsen California's Budget Crisis

You know the Democrats have done something awful when even the leftist Los Angeles Times breaks ranks and exposes them. "In a meeting they thought was private but was actually broadcast around the Capitol on Monday, 11 Assembly Democrats debated prolonging California's budget crisis to further their political goals."

Members of Democratic Study Group, which has pushed to confiscate billions more dollars from taxpayers, failed to note that a microphone in a committee room in the state Capitol was on as they schemed about using the Dems' favorite tactic, obstructionism, to pressure Republicans into accepting the Dems' favorite non-solution, tax increases, to fix Gov. Gray Davis' $38 billion budget deficit.

"The conversation was transmitted to roughly 500 'squawk boxes' around Sacramento that political staff, lobbyists and reporters use to listen in on legislative proceedings," the Times reported today.

Leftist Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg of Los Angeles said: "Since this is going to be a crisis, the crisis could be this year. No one's running [for re-election]. And maybe you end up better off than you would have, and maybe you don't. But what you do is you show people that you can't get to this without a 55 percent vote."

The state Constitution requires a two-thirds majority of the Legislature to approve any tax increase, but the ballot initiative would let the Legislature sock taxpayers with a vote by only 55 percent of legislators.

Assemblyman Fabian Nunez, also of L.A., agreed. "If you don't have a budget, it helps Democrats," he said.

Democrats to the Poor: Drop Dead!

Even the Times had the grace and sense to admit, "While a delay might serve the tactical advantage of Democrats, its consequences are already being felt by students, vendors and the poor: Since the new fiscal year began July 1 without a budget, the state has already begun to cut off money to some programs."

Assembly Budget Committee Vice Chairman John Campbell, R-Irvine, listened to about 20 minutes of the meeting on the squawk box in his office.

"It sounded like they were hoping to create a crisis at some point to further their political gains in other areas," he said. "I thought that was outrageous."

He said that the Democrats talked about exploiting the public's distaste for the (Democrat-run) Legislature.

"They were worried that if the Legislature appeared to have dealt with the budget crisis, the initiative may not play well," he said. "This is very surprising, considering they are in charge."

After an hour and a half, a staff member finally told the dimwitted Democrats that their meeting was being broadcast.

"Oh [expletive], [expletive]," Goldberg said.

"The squawk box is on," the underling said. "You need to turn it off right there."

"How could that happen?" Goldberg said.

She later refused to apologize even after being caught red-handed and with foot in mouth.

"We're in a crisis. You don't have to precipitate one. The question is whether we should make that crisis happen now when it's really happening," was the best Goldberg could offer. "When you wait a year, you double the amount you have to cut. Is it better to do it now or next year?"

[Mr.Fixit]

SACRAMENTO – California government is poised to spend up to 3.1 percent more this year over last year - despite the biggest budget deficit in history.

How is this possible? Through a lot more borrowing and deferred payments, according to an analysis of the latest budget proposal prepared by the nonpartisan legislative analyst. The July 14 report obtained by The Orange County Register details how the state's reliance on borrowed money shrouds what is actually being spent.

The state spent $77.7 billion last year out of its general fund. This year, the most recent budget proposal from the Senate calls for $80.2 billion in spending, factoring in the borrowed money and one-time cash. Although no final budget deal has been reached, the borrowed money is a must, lawmakers insist. And lawmakers say they're cutting as much as they can stomach.

The extra spending next year will go toward paying for state-subsidized health care for the poor and an expected enrollment increase in public schools.

Legislative Analyst Liz Hill would not comment on her office's report.

[weekendwarrior]

Originally posted by Roscoe


Tuesday, July 22, 2003With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...

Democrats Caught Plotting to Worsen California's Budget Crisis

You know the Democrats have done something awful when even the leftist Los Angeles Times breaks ranks and exposes them. "In a meeting they thought was private but was actually broadcast around the Capitol on Monday, 11 Assembly Democrats debated prolonging California's budget crisis to further their political goals."

Members of Democratic Study Group, which has pushed to confiscate billions more dollars from taxpayers, failed to note that a microphone in a committee room in the state Capitol was on as they schemed about using the Dems' favorite tactic, obstructionism, to pressure Republicans into accepting the Dems' favorite non-solution, tax increases, to fix Gov. Gray Davis' $38 billion budget deficit.

"The conversation was transmitted to roughly 500 'squawk boxes' around Sacramento that political staff, lobbyists and reporters use to listen in on legislative proceedings," the Times reported today.

Leftist Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg of Los Angeles said: "Since this is going to be a crisis, the crisis could be this year. No one's running [for re-election]. And maybe you end up better off than you would have, and maybe you don't. But what you do is you show people that you can't get to this without a 55 percent vote."

The state Constitution requires a two-thirds majority of the Legislature to approve any tax increase, but the ballot initiative would let the Legislature sock taxpayers with a vote by only 55 percent of legislators.

Assemblyman Fabian Nunez, also of L.A., agreed. "If you don't have a budget, it helps Democrats," he said.

Democrats to the Poor: Drop Dead!

Even the Times had the grace and sense to admit, "While a delay might serve the tactical advantage of Democrats, its consequences are already being felt by students, vendors and the poor: Since the new fiscal year began July 1 without a budget, the state has already begun to cut off money to some programs."

Assembly Budget Committee Vice Chairman John Campbell, R-Irvine, listened to about 20 minutes of the meeting on the squawk box in his office.

"It sounded like they were hoping to create a crisis at some point to further their political gains in other areas," he said. "I thought that was outrageous."

He said that the Democrats talked about exploiting the public's distaste for the (Democrat-run) Legislature.

"They were worried that if the Legislature appeared to have dealt with the budget crisis, the initiative may not play well," he said. "This is very surprising, considering they are in charge."

After an hour and a half, a staff member finally told the dimwitted Democrats that their meeting was being broadcast.

"Oh [expletive], [expletive]," Goldberg said.

"The squawk box is on," the underling said. "You need to turn it off right there."

"How could that happen?" Goldberg said.

She later refused to apologize even after being caught red-handed and with foot in mouth.

"We're in a crisis. You don't have to precipitate one. The question is whether we should make that crisis happen now when it's really happening," was the best Goldberg could offer. "When you wait a year, you double the amount you have to cut. Is it better to do it now or next year?"

Roscoe, They are after Prop 13 which limits the increase in real property taxes until the property is sold or becomes part of an estate. Older people on fixed incomes were being taxed out of their homes because the tax assessments went up with the property values. Take my father, his home cost is 15K and he pays taxes on that value or his value at the time prop 13 passed, current market value 500K which with a fixed income my parents could not pay the tax based on 500K. It takes a 2/3 vote to change the provisions of Prop 13.

Bottom line the old and poor get hosed. Younger working people that are constantly moving up pay real property taxes based on current market values for the houses they purchased.

I guess the Party of the People does not give a damn about retired folks.

[Woodz428]

As I read all the posts it struck me funny that So. Cal. was claimed to run the state. I Illinois it is the opposite, Chicago is the bully and sucks the funds from downstate. Just a point on the "elected" comment, as a twice candidate for state rep., the term "elected" is a little overplayed. When The USSR had the candidates for their"elections" they were portrayed as stacking the deck . Well folks it's not too different here, the 2 major parties make the criteria to get on the ballot and while it is different in every state, it is biased toward them. In Illinois, a 3rd party candidare is required to get 5 times the signatures to get ballot access, and if they should accomplish that the 2 major parties can challenge any and all the signatures. The challenge then requires that every challenged signature has to be sent a statement that they are required to sign, have notarized and return to the candidate that has been challenged. As you can probably tell this creates the kind of expense that only the 2 major parties can afford. I also find it interesring that so many politicians hate people that have money that was earned, yet feel it's o.k. for them to reap benefits financially,and in perks, off the backs of citizens.

[Roscoe]

"In Chicago we vote early and often"....Mayor Daly

Remember it was the Illinois voters (dead and alive) that put Jack Kennedy in the White House. Nixon, at the time, did not want to make a national scandal and demand a recall. He graciously ceded to the Kennedy majority. But it was the voter fraud in Illinois that put him over the hump.

Roscoe

[petek]

And now everyone that was in Chicago has retired to Florida???

[Roscoe]

Very good!!

Roscoe