I watched Tom Steyer last night for the first time. I also went to his website. And I listened to the other candidates.
Maybe I missed it...
Did any of these people indicate they would raise the Federal Excise Tax on gasoline?
Climate Change is cyclical and has been since the beginning of time. Right now the planet is in the warming stage. Unfortunately it will get warmer and warmer as time goes on for a couple of thousand years, and then cooling.
Check out the NASA/Climate website.
the Nasa site agrees man made climate change is happening and provides links to various other actual scientific institutions that agree
the difference between natural and man made means we are increasing it and it is happening at an accelerated rate. a .05% change would normally occur over hundreds or thousands of years. its not occurring in 100 years.
enjoy your massive climate extremes and temperature shifts. literally hundreds of millions of tonnes of crops will be destroyed if they can even grow in an area that has seen a big enough climate shift.
Man made global warming theory has the consensus of every single scientific institution and most scientists. all the evidence points to this.
this is why the only deniers are fringe organizations normally funded by fossil fuel companies. using ridiculous arguments like "well you didn't consider sun spots!!!"
like the climatologists just have a board and decide to randomly pin what they think is the effect.
Well there it is. Slimone posts a perfectly bland, factual comment, and you, like most "climate change warriors", reply with an answer tainted with sarcasm, and an undertone of insult.
Yet you people wonder why there are so many "deniers". No, they're not only "fringe organisations". Mostly, they're people with a habit of applying common sense to their thinking.
Sure it counts as facts (that natural climate change happens) as long as you ignore the entire rest of the facts lol. Is that the new conservative truth? my reality is my facts and the rest do not matter?
aww did I trigger you? aww was my tone over text format too sarcastic? oh jeez I can get you a safe space if you want?
LOL notice how you didn't provide one single rebuttal or fact? instead you cried. then you whined. then you tried to act like its sciences fault you can't accept it. Lol
"Mostly, they're people with a habit of applying common sense to their thinking."
you don't know how science works do you? its a methodology used to test and to explain the natural world. observing facts and formulating a theory that best explains them.
it has nothing to do with your feelings, your emotions or what you think is common sense. you have no clue what you are talking about
Please send me over two respected institutions that agree with you. ill be waiting for ever.
"aww did I trigger you? aww was my tone over text format too sarcastic? oh jeez I can get you a safe space if you want?..............you cried. then you whined. then you tried to act like its sciences fault you can't accept it."
You've made it obvious that those are the responses which you, yourself, have been subjected to in your exchanges. So, was that a bit of self-help therapy, a bit of role-playing?
lol are you okay? nice rebuttal yet again
shareI'm not going to waste my time rebutting your posts.
The more I have to do with you people, the more I'm drawn to the almost inescapable conclusion that I'm talking to classic fanatics. You all fit the description. I expect you've heard of "monomania". The term has probably been applied to you already, and I'm sure you know what it means.
I'm reluctant to do the obvious, and compare you people to that other classic and infamous case of monomania, the Nazi Movement. But the similarities are almost blinding. You have your "charismatic leader"; your rigid dogma, backed by science; your dedication that compels you to abandon civility and good manners in furtherance of your "Cause", and your willingness to sacrifice all for it.
Hagel Greta!
"The more I have to do with you people, the more I'm drawn to the almost inescapable conclusion that I'm talking to classic fanatics."
Yes just like people who believe in a spherical earth, evolution, germ theory and gravity. They are "total fanatics" exactly like "the nazis" because we don't accept your pseudo science "common sense" as a replacement for actual studies and evidence. if you denied gravity or germ theory and someone called them an idiot and that they don't understand science. Would you call them a fanatic and nazi? or would you agree it is idiotic that someone doesn't accept basic science. This is what is happening with global warming science. there is a consensus. around 97% of actual scientists in the field agree. you have no one reputable on your side
hahahah people who believe in the actual science are now "like nazis".
there is not "charismatic leaders" in science. you keep showing you don't know how it works even at an elementary level.
in some sense science is not rigid (because it can be replaced by new and better evidence and explanations) in another yes it is rigid. in the sense that either the facts support your theory. or they do not. and science will not change to suit your feelings.
You are delusional. Not that you had any credibility. but any small shred is gone. You don't understand science, you don't understand research. You don't understand scientific consensus. You think your feelings are a replacement for the scientific method and that you a nobody know more about climate change than climatologists.
you are a joke.
There's another common feature of fanatics. It's their complete inability to grasp what's being said to them unless it exactly matches what they expect to hear.
I'll write it again, to give you a second chance to read and comprehend it. Take your time:
I'm not going to waste my time rebutting your posts.
Now, see, this means I will not be debating "climate change science".
What I am debating, though, is the science of you and your fanatical obsession with your "Cause". I expect you'd show the same passionate devotion to the Flat Earth Society, if their "leader" got into your ear and told you, "You've got to do something about the Earth's roundness, before we all fall off and perish. You can make a difference!"
Your charismatic leader is not in Science, and I never said she was. Again, you only heard what you wanted to refute. Typical fanaticism. Your fixation with the cause that you've so eagerly taken up precludes any opposition. That's because fanatics, for all their passionate zeal, are actually very insecure. They, like you, go around preaching in the streets about their "Cause", and they justify their obnoxious behaviour by saying that they're only trying to save the world. With this they hope to prevent any troublesome arguments which might make them doubt themselves.
But people tend to shrink away from fanatics. So, they become louder. The more doubters they find, the louder they become. Until finally they're on Net forums insulting people when they find they can't even persuade them from the safety of distance.
It seems strange to me that you want to save people who you think are a "joke" and "delusional"....?
again. you don't know how science works. I'm sorry you can't form a coherent argument.
science doesn't have a "cause" it measures as best it can facts about reality. and tries to explain them.
another grown adult who wouldn't pass grade 9 science class..
please stop embarrassing yourself
Definition of monomania:
1: Mental illness, especially when limited in expression to one idea or area of thought.
2: Excessive concentration on a single object or idea.
3. Exaggerated or obsessive enthusiasm for or preoccupation with one thing.
"He has an obsession with the topic that verges on monomania"
Definition of fanatic
a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, especially for an extreme religious or political cause.
SYNONYMS FOR fanatic
1 enthusiast, zealot, bigot, hothead, militant. Fanatic, zealot, militant, devotee refer to persons showing more than ordinary support for, adherence to, or interest in a cause, point of view, or activity. ... Fanatic further implies unbalanced or obsessive behavior: a wild-eyed fanatic.
The study of language is something of a science too, chum.
Yes anyone who provides facts and evidence and doesn't agree with you is
1. a nazi
2. has monomania
3. is a fanatic
You ever think when someone offers you the facts and the science. and all you can do is try and slander them with ridiculous made up attacks. you might be the problem?
I suggest you seek help. you aren't okay mentally.
the best part is this
"Definition of monomania:
1: Mental illness, especially when limited in expression to one idea or area of thought.
2: Excessive concentration on a single object or idea.
3. Exaggerated or obsessive enthusiasm for or preoccupation with one thing."
which literally applies to everything you've done this whole time. and her sis how
1. "your re a fanatic!". repeated over and over and over again
2. "I won't address your points! you are a fanatic who needs a charismatic leader!"
3. yet again "you are a fanatic!'
you are self projecting your mental instability on me lol
Go away now.
shareYou need mental health services.
you have slowly but surely been getting closer to the core of your own delusion. from a more generalist extreme follower (nazi) to a specific fanatic, obsessed with a single area of thought.
No matter what the facts, what the evidence and what the science is.
everyone else is "wrong and a fanatic just like a nazi" because... well you've never given a shred of evidence.
the funniest thing I didn't address is when you said " That's because fanatics, for all their passionate zeal, are actually very insecure." I actually LOL'd. that's like me saying "I believe in evolution. the science points to it". and you saying "you are a fanatic!!! you just say people who don't believe in evolution re wrong because you are insecure"
do you realize how dumb you sound?
You don't understand anything.
Go away, I said.
This is the self projecting im talking about. look kid. Facts don't care about your feelings. you have constructed this paranoid delusion in your head that that anyone who disagrees with you is a nazi.
hey if I say gravity is true and you disagree. and I refuse to back down. am I fanatic just like the nazis? following a "charismatic leader"?
what drugs are you on? are you getting help?
[deleted]
https://www.healthyplace.com/other-info/mental-illness-overview/free-mental-health-services-and-how-to-find-them
you need help. be a man admit you were wrong
https://www.healthyplace.com/other-info/mental-illness-overview/free-mental-health-services-and-how-to-find-them here's a link to free mental health services
sharewhat a sad little man you are
shareI fully intended to simply ignore you from this point, but since you have exhibited those symptoms I almost feel that I have a de facto duty of care to your family, friends and acquaintances, who might come into contact with you on a daily basis.
With that in mind, I strongly recommend that you keep those links to Mental Health sites. It might also benefit you to look for information sites about the various Personality Disorders. There are also sites that give information on the different forms of Mania, Bipolar Disorder, etc. Also, (and particularly in your case), the condition known as Hebephrenic Schizophrenic. I'm sure you've had some experience with them already, but it doesn't hurt to stay updated on new treatments.
Or, you could just go directly to one of the many Self-Help sites that advise people on how to modify their anti-social behaviour. There are sites that address ASPD in some detail, which I think would benefit you.
These treatments may also have the flow-on effect of alleviating your more distressing symptoms and perhaps even assisting in your deprogramming.
more self projecting. lol "fanatic"
shareYou seem to be very familiar with the concept of "projecting". That's good. It indicates self-awareness. That's a start.
sharelol what? you didn't answer my question. if I believe in gravity and say people who don't believe in the science behind it are idiots.
am I a nazi fanatic following a charismatic leader?
you realize how dumb you sound
FFS!!!!! Give it a rest, will you!!!!!
You're only making yourself look ridiculous to anyone following this thread. Do yourself a favour and belt up!!
[deleted]
Yes I saw that post of yours.......
You still don't get it, do you?
You've displayed yet another aspect of your fanaticist personality disorder. You swamp a thread with cut and paste names to "prove" your case, and then you point at them like a little kiddie showing off his first crayon drawing.
Actually, you know, do keep this up. You won't realise it of course, but you're making a ridiculous spectacle of yourself. And I must say I'm enjoying it.
[deleted]
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
here's afew more
And do you have any more? Please, post them. I'm really interested.
share[deleted]
No really, I want to see more proof of climate change, and how it will affect me. Really, I'm interested.
share[deleted]
textbook psycho
Anyway, show me more proof of climate change. Really. I'm very interested.
yes you are. lol
share"fanatic fanatic!!"
He screams. while in a straight jacket yelling at the orderly trying to administer his medicine.
Never mind that, where's my links? I really want more links to scientists. Because I'm very interested in scientific links that will support my new found belief that global warming is real. You convinced me. You're so persuasive and your arguments are so powerful and credible, not to mention rational, that I couldn't hold out any longer. You're amazing, the way you persevered against my doubts and derision and kept at it until I finally understood. How could I have possibly denied it? So, now I want more. More links. Links to sources that will give me even more vital information to aid in my education. Where are they?
share[deleted]
No, I can't give any, but I know you have lots more, so I'm begging you; please give me more links! If you can't give any more, please explain in your own words all about global warming. Everything about it, the lot, leave nothing out. I really want to know, honestly.
share[deleted]
Yes yes, but you were going to explain in your own words all about climate change, weren't you? Don't let me down now. you said you would. I'll explain climate change, you said. I'll prove climate change, you said. Huh! I don't think you want me to know about climate change, that's what I think. Just when I was getting interested in it, you stopped teaching me. That's not cool.
share[deleted]
Well if you're not going to give me any more links to scientists who believe in "climate change", then I don't know what! I keep asking you for more links but you keep refusing my request. You refuse it and refuse it, and refuse it, just like as if you're a fanatic. You keep not teaching me more about climate change, even when I've asked you. You just won't. Shall I come to your house and ask again, and if you still won't give me more links, I don't know what... ?Or we could talk about gravity. Gravity's is good. Although it tends to get me down. Or we could talk about religion. I could give you links to all the people who support God. There are a lot of links, though, and it will take you a long while to check them all out. I'll post the first of these tomorrow. The first links will be to everyone who worships the Xtian god. The next day, I'll post links to the people who believe in a different god. It might take a while, but bear with me, won't you. I promise.
shareLol still ranting. man we both know what you are going to end up doing. burden lives like you always end up having the same thing happen hahaha
shareYou haven't had enough yet?? Seriously??
share[deleted]
Frankly, I rather suspect you're a tad suicidal. But there's nothing I can do for you. You'll just have to deal with it.
share who said sad? more self projecting "fanatic!!!" "nazi!!"
please keep going you are possibly the most embarrassing commenter on here
still waiting on a single institution that agrees with you.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
Authors of seven climate consensus studies β including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook β co-authored a paper that should settle the expert climate consensus question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:
1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, itβs somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.
2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.
https://skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-OISM-Petition-Project.html
here is actual scientist and actual reputable organizations dismantling your made up "anti man made global warming scientists"
the OISM claims to have 30 000 scientists who signed a petition disagreeing with man made global warming. the problem ??
"The OISMβs qualifications for being a βscientistβ are expansive, and as such there are a number of questions that have to be answered before we can take this list seriously. What expertise does a nuclear engineer or a medical doctor or a food scientist or mechanical engineer have that makes them qualified to have an informed opinion on the cause(s) of recent climate disruption? "
""At this point itβs literally impossible to know because the names and degrees on the list cannot be verified by anyone outside the OISM. We can only take the OISMβs word that theyβre all real names, that all the degrees are correct, and so on. This does not stand up to the most basic tests of scientific credibility. According to the OISM website, anyone with a Bachelorβs, Masterβs, or Doctorate of Philosophy in a field related to physical sciences is qualifie
See I have real climatologists and organizations of climatologists related to climate science who studied it and agree with me.
you have a group claiming to have 30000 signatories that can't be verified. but by their own admission include a person with a "masters degree in philosophy" as a "scientist" and as an authority on climate change
Oh good lord someone has been mainlining the kool-aid this time.
Consensus of every single scientific institution, what a complete bullshit comment... You couldn't even name a dozen scientific institution if you had to and there are hundreds but you think they all agree on something.
People that have actually looked at the raw data don't buy into the global warming bullshit, the only big group of "scientists" that jump on this bandwagon are scientists that are in a different field far removed from the climatology.
Why would anyone give a shit what NASA says on the subject? NOAA is the organization that tracks temperature data, NASA is just the organization that distorts the raw data to try and push an agenda to raise taxes on people. Pull your head out and think for yourself. Better yet go to your local library and check out the Al Gore Inconvenient Truth DVD, watch it and take notes of all the places that are supposed to be underwater today because of global warming... none of them are underwater. That pretty much proves it was bullshit, and climate change is nothing but a rebranded global warming, they changed the name because the warming was proven to be nonexistent.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
The Geological Society of America
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la RepΓΊblica Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias FΓsicas, MatemΓ‘ticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
AcadΓ©mie des Sciences et Techniques du SΓ©nΓ©gal
AcadΓ©mie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'AcadΓ©mie des Sciences et Techniques du SΓ©nΓ©gal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
How many more scientific organizations and institutions that support man made global warming should I produce??
notice how not a single one is "CLIMATESCIENCETRUTH.org"
notice how they are real organizations representing literally millions of actual scientists?
You've proven you can use google. Now go watch Al Gore's movie and tell me how many of those place he said would be underwater actually are... Here I'll save you the inconvenience of watching it, the answer is 0. Global warming was a hoax.
No ive proven one of us has almost the entire scientific community on our side.
LOL al gore is representative of the scientific community?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH man please stop embarrassing yourself
Even if every institution you list has bought off on the global warming bullshit it still only a fraction of the total institutions in the world. How many did you come up with in your google search? It looks like you might have about a hundred... well there are hundreds in the US alone so what have your proven? That a fraction of the institutions believe in the tooth fairy?
And don't knock Al Gore, he is the flag bearer for the Global Warming hoax, that the hoaxer rebranded climate change. Are you afraid to look at the many prediction that failed to come true? He couldn't even predict the actual global temperature because he said it would be going up and it stayed constant, so he failed at the most basic prediction.
Thats really all you got hhahahahahahahhahahahahah>>
give me three that agree with you? real scientific institutions. not basement made websites.
Hahahahaha you are embarrassing.
no Gore is a man who made a movie. scientists are the flag bearers.
if I make a movie misrepresenting Gravity and the theory or relativity. am I right and the scientists wrong? and now by extension the science is wrong because I made a movie? See how fucking stupid you sound?
yet again. you don't understand scientific consensus, the scientific method and research, the scientific community. I keep giving you a chance at redeeming your argument or at least support for it. and instead you keep punching yourself in the nuts then looking at me and saying "see im winning!"
No ive proven one of us has almost the entire scientific community on our side.
LOL al gore is representative of the scientific community?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH man please stop embarrassing yourself
It's just another way to distract the public from the real problems people like Tom Steyer and Bloomberg don't want to address. They figure, "If I'm a hero to fixing the planet, nobody's gonna notice that I'm ignoring the real issues!" What's really sad are the voters who don't realize they've been hoodwinked yet again 4-10 years down the line.
shareChristians should not fear!
If you listen to everything, it is unbelievable.
Published on Jun 18, 2019
18 years after its publication, Dr. John Robson fact-checks the predictions in the Canadian government's 2001 pamphlet warning of increased pollution, falling St. Lawrence water levels, crop failure and other things that should have happened by now.
the Canadian government is now the scientific community... news to me..
shareI just wish it would actually warm up and warm up for good I am so fucking sick of winter.
shareMove to Antarctica. Itβs 65 lol! Donβt forget your fan.
shareYou forgot the -
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/antarctica/south-pole
Actually it's a toasty 24 F on the coast but it is summer there you know. Most places are like -49 F or -32 F.
"Did any of these people indicate they would raise the Federal Excise Tax on gasoline?"
The Federal Excise Tax on gasoline was last raised in 1993 (Clinton) to 18.4 cents a gallon. (We won't explore here why the conservatives have never acted to reverse that increase...)
I did some math:
In 1999 I could actually buy gas for less than a dollar (0.999). I figured adding up the Federal Excise Tax, the California Excise Tax, and the California Sales Tax, the retail price was 0.592, so the Federal Excise Tax comes out to 31%.
Yesterday I paid $3.29/gallon. Doing the same math, the Federal Excise Tax comes out to 7%.
(and I understand this is a flawed way to analyze this. If all those taxes were eliminated, the price at the pump today would still be $3.29.)
I'm not a big "Climate Change Is A Crisis" guy, but I am a big "I don't like getting into wars over oil" guy.
Donald has it down here in Harris county at $1.86 a gallon.
shareBut how much is a hooker with an even number of toes?
shareπ€£πππππ€£π€£π€£π€£π€£π€£πππ€£πππππ€£π€£π€£π€£π€£π€£ππππππ€£π€£πππ€£π€£ππππ€£π€£π€£πππππππ€£π€£πππ€£π€£ππππ€£π€£π€£ππππ€£πππππ€£π€£π€£π€£π€£π€£ππππππ€£π€£πππ€£π€£ππππ€£π€£π€£ππππ€£πππππ€£π€£π€£π€£π€£π€£ππππππ€£π€£πππ€£π€£ππππ€£π€£π€£ππππ€£πππππ€£π€£π€£π€£π€£π€£ππππππ€£π€£πππ€£π€£ππππ€£π€£π€£ππππ€£πππππ€£π€£π€£π€£π€£π€£ππππππ€£π€£πππ€£π€£ππππ€£π€£π€£ππππ€£πππππ€£π€£π€£π€£π€£π€£ππππππ€£π€£πππ€£π€£ππππ€£π€£π€£πππ
π€£πππππ€£π€£π€£π€£π€£π€£πππππ€£πππππ€£π€£π€£π€£π€£π€£πππππ€£πππππ€£π€£π€£π€£π€£π€£ππππππ€£π€£πππ€£π€£ππππ€£π€£π€£πππππ€£π€£πππ€£π€£ππππ€£π€£π€£πππππ€£π€£πππ€£π€£ππππ€£π€£π€£ππππ€£πππππ€£π€£π€£π€£π€£π€£ππππππ€£π€£πππ€£π€£ππππ€£π€£π€£ππππ€£πππππ€£π€£π€£π€£π€£π€£ππππππ€£π€£πππ€£π€£ππππ€£π€£π€£ππππ€£πππππ€£π€£π€£π€£π€£π€£ππππππ€£π€£πππ€£π€£ππππ€£π€£π€£ππππ€£πππππ€£π€£π€£π€£π€£π€£ππππππ€£π€£πππ€£π€£ππππ€£π€£π€£πππ
At $1.86 a gallon that Federal Excise Tax of 0.184 is over 10%! (assuming no state taxes)
Call Donald and demand a cut to the excise tax!
Bernie's got a whole bunch of stuff in his Green New Deal - but I don't see where he would raise the Federal Excise Tax on gasoline.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/green-new-deal/