US - raise the gas tax

[Brian37]

I hope you are not missing my point. I am not blaming anyone for doing what they need to do as individuals. I am blaming oil companies and governments for not funding clean energy long ago. Nobody is suggesting we stop making transportation, just move away from fossil burning transportation.

Yes, and my point is that taxing gas will hurt the working class

UGGGGGG.....

Only if the greedy oil companies are dicks.

If the tax on one gallon is say 30 cents, and the gallon of gas is $2.70 total with tax for example $3.00, that still means $2.70 goes to the company. You have to stop buying into the crap that the companies cant afford to absorb the tax and pass it down to the consumer. THAT is just greed and blackmail. If the cost of a gallon of gas was $2.70 IN TAX and only 30 cents to the company, then you'd have a right to bitch. 

BUT regardless. Any rise in cost will pale in comparison to continuing to burn fossil fuels. 

Higher prices of anything hurt the working class, I agree. But it gets raised not because the corporations need to always raise prices. It gets raised because they are not competing for consumers, but competing for shareholders. And the MAJORITY of stock holders are already millionaires and billionaires. 

Global corporations DO NOT have to raise prices because of taxes going up. They raise prices because of greed. It is a refusal of the CEOs and shareholders understanding that the labor that makes the stuff they invest in matter too.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

We have our own law.  The refugee act of 1980.

It states, in short, that the us has a legal obligation to process asylum seekers..there are two ways to do that, and both require that a person be in the us.  Those agents on the border, broke our laws -specifically- so that our government would not be bound by our laws..which is actually something that we can do on the basis of a case involving a guy at ellis island, lol.  See, being in our country is not necessarily being in our country, for purpose of law.  Otherwise, we'd have to give those filthy browns constitutional protection and adhere to the laws we wrote about them.  The moment that a person is close enough to touch a border fence..they're in our country, but not -in- our country and we only have to follow our own laws when people are in-in our country.

See...see...it all makes sense!

What some people don’t seem to grasp is that the 1967 Protocol is also your law. It is treaty to which the US is signatory. Under it, you may not deny entry to anyone who even claims to be a refugee (without compelling reason, such as being a known criminal) without a review of their claim, and you are required to house and care for them while their claim is being processed.


The fact that virtually all countries who signed the Protocol routinely violate it doesn’t make doing so any less illegal.

Boru

[ignoramus]

I don't like the thought that the dinos died in vain.

I drive a v8. I'm doing my part! Bloody disrespectful Prius drivers!

[onlinebiker]

We have our own law.  The refugee act of 1980.

It states, in short, that the us has a legal obligation to process asylum seekers..there are two ways to do that, and both require that a person be in the us.  Those agents on the border, broke our laws -specifically- so that our government would not be bound by our laws..which is actually something that we can do on the basis of a case involving a guy at ellis island, lol.  See, being in our country is not necessarily being in our country, for purpose of law.  Otherwise, we'd have to give those filthy browns constitutional protection and adhere to the laws we wrote about them.  The moment that a person is close enough to touch a border fence..they're in our country, but not -in- our country and we only have to follow our own laws when people are in-in our country.

See...see...it all makes sense!

What some people don’t seem to grasp is that the 1967 Protocol is also your law. It is treaty to which the US is signatory. Under it, you may not deny entry to anyone who even claims to be a refugee (without compelling reason, such as being a known criminal) without a review of their claim, and you are required to house and care for them while their claim is being processed.


The fact that virtually all countries who signed the Protocol routinely violate it doesn’t make doing so any less illegal.

Boru

So - let them all in....

Brilliant.


Ever hear of logistics?


We simply do not have the infrastructure to handle the current influx - and if we did - sure as shit - we wouldn't for long - when the rest of Central and South America decided they want to go north too....

[The Grand Nudger]

We do, and routinely handle larger groups. At some point or another, you're going to have to confront the fact that this incident was created by our administration and is nothing more than a midterm stunt gone sideways.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What some people don’t seem to grasp is that the 1967 Protocol is also your law. It is treaty to which the US is signatory. Under it, you may not deny entry to anyone who even claims to be a refugee (without compelling reason, such as being a known criminal) without a review of their claim, and you are required to house and care for them while their claim is being processed.


The fact that virtually all countries who signed the Protocol routinely violate it doesn’t make doing so any less illegal.

Boru

So - let them all in....

Brilliant.


Ever hear of logistics?


We simply do not have the  infrastructure to handle the current influx - and if we did - sure as shit - we wouldn't for long - when the rest of Central and South America decided they want to go north too....

You’ve got a $500 000 000 earmarked exactly for that - it’s called ‘The Office Of Refugee Resettlement’.  

I really dislike telling people how their own country operates, but you seem pathetically ignorant.

Boru