I can go to Walmart and buy scissors right now. No ID. No background check. No training.

To buy a handgun I need to go to a FFL and provide photo ID, fill out a Federal ATF Form 4473, a PSP SP4-113 and get a background check through NICS.

Nothing.

Why would they be liable for anything?

False.

ACT 235 does require a particular training course to become an armed guard, which (naturally) you have to pay for out-of-pocket and includes a mandatory live fire training environment to qualify you on whatever type of firearm you wish to carry for work (since many armed guards provide their own arms as well).

That won't happen until Federal subsidies for student loans is ended. As long as the Fed keeps handing out money willy nilly for students to go to any school they want, tuition will remain high because schools will have no reason to lower tuition.

You hate the poor and want to keep them destitute and unable to better themselves. Got it.

You must be a Republican.

At least we've established that you would rather keep the tax high than lower it, since the higher tax disproportionately impacts the poor and lower middle class.

Apparently their plight isn't your concern, and helping them has to be "paid for" in some other fashion.

Ah yes...the common "the right" excuse used by people to dismiss inconvenient arguments when their own ignorance of the topic is highlighted over the course of discussion.

Let's put a huge industrial construction facility that builds I&C systems right in the middle of Downtown. Sounds great.

You're an entitled self-important little pissant who thinks he is better than everyone else, and it is tiring. Must be nice living off of mommy and daddy for life while the rest of us have to work for a living.

Not all of us are lucky enough to be born with a silver spoon shoved up our asses.

Get bent kid. And get blocked.

Even if the Republicans had voted to approve Sen. Hughes' amendment, the "tax cuts" would have still been "unfunded."

So it sounds like no matter what you would have been opposed to reducing the gas tax to a reasonable level that doesn't rape the poor and middle class.

So you hate poor people and only want the rich to drive.

Got it.

No, it’s not.

It sounds like you’re either independently wealthy or a rich kid who doesn’t need to worry about balancing income to cost of living and, as such, can afford to live at a loss.

The rest of us can’t.

We have the lowest FLAT income tax - true. But not by much, nor do we have the lowest income tax. In fact there are several states with NO income tax that do not have the same problems we have involving the gas tax and it’s disposition.

More and higher taxes isn’t always the answer.

Also many states roll state and local taxes into one tax, and the state provides local municipalities with funding. Such as Utah. I was looking at Utah’s taxes since I was contemplating a job out there under my current company - they have a higher state tax, but no city tax. So despite having a higher state tax, I’d save several hundred dollars a month in taxes out there making the same pay.

>The fun thing about threads like this is reading posts from people who choose to live 40 miles from their job cry about how they have to pay to fill their 12mpg gas guzzler. No one is forcing them to live that way but they think that everyone else should pay their way.

I didn’t “choose” to live where I am. I cannot afford to live a convenient distance from work because the cost-of-living in Cranberry is so high, so I live in the city (where I can afford to live) and commute.

I wish I could live walking distance from work, but that is not realistic for me. So I live where I can afford to live. That is part of why people commute so far - they get decent paying jobs in Area A, but the jobs don’t quite pay enough to live in Area A. So they live in Area C or D, where their pay from Area A allows them to live a decent life, and then commute to Area A for work.

I don’t think you have a very firm grasp on the real world or how people interact with it.

Because the amendment the Democrats offered didn’t “pay” for the tax cut - it was a one-time deal and done. So even if the Republicans had voted for Sen. Hughes amendment and authorized the one-time $250,000,000 transfer from the General Fund to the Motor License Fund, there still would’ve been nothing in the proposal to reduce spending or increase revenue from another source to compensate.

Here is the problem. Gas guzzlers are expensive. Very expensive. People who can afford gas guzzlers aren’t too worried about the cost of gas.

High gas taxes disproportionately impact the poor, who have to be careful of every penny they spend because every penny is important. They are the ones who suffer most under high gas taxes.

https://triblive.com/news/pennsylvania/pa-roads-bridges-to-get-extra-175m-as-funding-is-freed-up-from-state-police/

There was already $175,000,000 freed up to go back towards the Motor License Fund by reducing allocation to the Pennsylvania State Police. The Democrats wanted a one time, and one time only, allocation of $225,000,000 from the state general fund to the Motor License Fund.

This was not a way of increasing revenue to compensate for the decrease in taxes - it was just a one time transfer of funds.

The US is also significantly more spread out than comparable countries, forcing us to have to travel more often and further than people living in comparable countries.

The days of people living very close to their jobs are over. My job is a 30-45 minute from where I live, and I cannot afford to live closer to where I work because of the cost of living in that area. 40 or even 30 years ago, that would’ve been the exception.

Now it is more of the rule.

And now the optics will be the Republicans trying to lower it and the Democrats keeping it high.

Interesting that 19 Democrats voted to keep our gas taxes the second highest in the nation. I looked over the bill and it's a straight forward two page single subject bill - no pork or anything.

I wonder if the Democrats in the State House will also oppose reducing the gas tax.

Damn son...

Just wee ones.

For now.

Even if the Republicans support it, I don't see it passing the Democrat-controlled State House despite the fact that it almost cost them the Speaker position.

Thankfully that particular work trip was the exception and not the rule. And we usually drive rentals for work trips.

As an example only - I live in Pennsylvania, obviously. But I often do field work outside of the state. I once worked for 3 1/2 months in Georgia, and put over 12,000 miles on the vehicle during that assignment - pretty much all of it outside of Pennsylvania.

Yet by taxing miles, I'd be taxed for all 12,000+ of it even though most of it was not in Pennsylvania. This is not exactly a good solution either.

This is exactly why we need to change the rules to state that a person cannot run for two offices at the same time. If you are a State Representative and you want to run for Congress, then you run for Congress. That way another person can run for your now-vacant State Representative position and we won't see situations like this happen again.

Are the Republicans playing dirty? Yes.

But ultimately this is the fault of Summer Lee for running for PA House and the House of Representatives in the same election. She created the situation herself. If Summer Lee and Austin Davis had only run for higher office (Congress and Lt. Gov) and allowed others to run for their state-level offices, Democrats would control the State House and this wouldn't be an issue.