Governor Corbett set to announce plan for transportation funding (Penn: 2014, salary)

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by UDResident

I never said any of that. I simply have pointed out multiple times that he is taxing the MIDDLE CLASS gas station owners, NOT the oil and gas industry as you and others have ignorantly tried to claim.

This won't cost the gas station owners anything as they will pass these costs onto the consumer which is the point you keep failing to understand. This is the way business works, when you have an increase in your expense it gets added to the cost of the product.

[UDResident]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

This won't cost the gas station owners anything as they will pass these costs onto the consumer which is the point you keep failing to understand. This is the way business works, when you have an increase in your expense it gets added to the cost of the product.

So in other words... Corbett is screwing both the middle class and the consumer... as usual.

There's no "point" I keep failing to understand. You just keep saying the same things in order to contradict a straw-man and not what I actually say.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by UDResident

So in other words... Corbett is screwing both the middle class and the consumer... as usual.

No he isn't, you're missing the point entirely. Let's say he taxes Exxon. Exxon passes those costs onto the distributor, the distributor passes them onto gas station, the gas station owner passes those costs onto the person buying gasoline and if I was still in the trucking business I would pass those costs onto my customers. In this case the consumer buying my product that is not gasoline is paying a gasoline tax.

Is it sinking in yet? If you can find any flaw in what I've outlined I'd love to hear your argument.

[pman]

Originally Posted by UDResident

So in other words... Corbett is screwing both the middle class and the consumer... as usual.

There's no "point" I keep failing to understand. You just keep saying the same things in order to contradict a straw-man and not what I actually say.

how is funding infrastructure screwing everyone? It's not perfect but it's a decent solution as well as one that rendell also endorsed.

[BPP1999]

Originally Posted by UDResident

Responding to your catty dig much more directly has nothing to do with "anger issues".

I believe the word you're looking for is vitriolic. Sorry buddy but responding in kind to childish, catty little digs and being blunt is not being "vitriolic" no matter what buzz words people like to throw around,

I stand corrected. Thanks, "buddy". That's the most helpful post you've made in awhile, aside from bashing everyone who doesn't agree with you. Pretty soon you'll get this thread closed, too, like the one last week, after you lambasted everyone and everything with a different opinion.

[UDResident]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

No he isn't, you're missing the point entirely. Let's say he taxes Exxon. Exxon passes those costs onto the distributor, the distributor passes them onto gas station, the gas station owner passes those costs onto the person buying gasoline and if I was still in the trucking business I would pass those costs onto my customers. In this case the consumer buying my product that is not gasoline is paying a gasoline tax.

Is it sinking in yet? If you can find any flaw in what I've outlined I'd love to hear your argument.

Na.. sorry buddy. Seriously, that juvenile, pseudo-intellectual nonsense might impress people who are easily misled but anybody with a level of intelligence above that of a typical middle-schooler can see through it very easily.

The flaw is that you're trying to "refute" a strawman instead of just admitting you were wrong when you claimed he taxed oil and gas companies. That's something that people who can't actually argue a point or who can't refute somebody else's point do.

Originally Posted by pman

how is funding infrastructure screwing everyone? It's not perfect but it's a decent solution as well as one that rendell also endorsed.

Did I say he screwed "everyone"? No. And how is he funding infrastructure? All you've seen are words on his part. No concrete plan for exactly what is being funded. He spoke words about funding education, too. Do you honestly think it's anything more than typical PR nonsense? Really?

Will you at least admit that he is in fact choosing to screw over the middle class and the consumer by taxing GAS STATION OWNERS... not oil and gas companies (as you repeatedly tried to claim, while insulting me and my viewpoint repeatedly) ? Will you at least admit that he was doing this specifically so that he wouldn't have to tax his financial backers in the oil and gas industries?

Originally Posted by BPP1999

I stand corrected. Thanks, "buddy". That's the most helpful post you've made in awhile, aside from bashing everyone who doesn't agree with you. Pretty soon you'll get this thread closed, too, like the one last week, after you lambasted everyone and everything with a different opinion.

No problem, sport. Sorry buddy but I never did any of that. I responded to catty digs from people like you, who can't stand anybody disagreeing with you so you make catty little digs and attack people who disagree with you then have the nerve to try to project that onto the person you insult. Do I need to pull up your first post in response to mine? I bet even if I did that you would continue this delusional nonsense about me "lambasting everybody with a different opinion".

I'm supposed to respect you or take you seriously when you can't even take responsibility for your own actions? I take responsibility for mine, every time. Do I need to respond? No, but doing the other way does nothing but waste my time as nothing is ever done about it and excuses are always made about that... and I'll be damned if I'm going to let some kid on the internet disrespect me and not say anything back.

It's my fault that people like you are incapable of having an intelligent discussion that isn't filled with unprovoked insults/attacks, fallacies, and misinformation?

[BPP1999]

Originally Posted by UDResident

No problem, sport. Sorry buddy but I never did any of that. I responded to catty digs from people like you, who can't stand anybody disagreeing with you so you make catty little digs and attack people who disagree with you then have the nerve to try to project that onto the person you insult. Do I need to pull up your first post in response to mine? I bet even if I did that you would continue this delusional nonsense about me "lambasting everybody with a different opinion".

I'm supposed to respect you or take you seriously when you can't even take responsibility for your own actions? I take responsibility for mine, every time. Do I need to respond? No, but doing the other way does nothing but waste my time as nothing is ever done about it and excuses are always made about that... and I'll be damned if I'm going to let some kid on the internet disrespect me and not say anything back.

It's my fault that people like you are incapable of having an intelligent discussion that isn't filled with unprovoked insults/attacks, fallacies, and misinformation?

Perhaps the moderators would like to read this entire thread, determine when it got nasty, and go from there.

[pman]

Originally Posted by UDResident

...
Did I say he screwed "everyone"? No. And how is he funding infrastructure? All you've seen are words on his part. No concrete plan for exactly what is being funded. He spoke words about funding education, too. Do you honestly think it's anything more than typical PR nonsense? Really?

he has a solid proposal for funding infrastructure. anyway, my original point was that he has some solid proposals and getting them passed is a way to earn my vote. I didn't say I'm voting for him..I'm still waiting to see how this year plays out and who will run against him.

Originally Posted by UDResident

...
Will you at least admit that he is in fact choosing to screw over the middle class and the consumer by taxing GAS STATION OWNERS... not oil and gas companies (as you repeatedly tried to claim, while insulting me and my viewpoint repeatedly) ? Will you at least admit that he was doing this specifically so that he wouldn't have to tax his financial backers in the oil and gas industries?

no, I don't agree with your viewpoint. I don't see how he is screwing the middle class by taxing oil. from a transportation point of view I don't see how your complaint is relevant. it raises money by taxing fuel. not perfect, but not screwing the middle class either. I also don't agree that it's a gift to his backers the way his stance on shale gas is. he chose it because he could argue that he isn't raising taxes. It's irrelevant wheter it's the oil franchise tax or some kind of magical tax that hits only oil companies but not people who sell it...the point is that users of oil will pay the tax and to the extent users of oil are users of roads, it's a good idea.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by UDResident

Na.. sorry buddy. Seriously, that juvenile, pseudo-intellectual nonsense might impress people who are easily misled but anybody with a level of intelligence above that of a typical middle-schooler can see through it very easily.

If you can see through it so easily then why can't you simply discuss it instead of the insults?

Will you at least admit that he is in fact choosing to screw over the middle class and the consumer by taxing GAS STATION OWNERS...

Let's try this another way. What's your plan, who would you tax?

[pman]

Pennsylvania House committee approves $2 billion plan to pay for roads, bridges, transit - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette