PDA

View Full Version : Gas-Tax Holiday as a litmus test for POTUS


Achilles
04-30-2008, 01:27 PM
...or "mimartin Has His Revenge".

For those of you living outside the U.S. or otherwise not following U.S. politics, presumed Republican Presidential Nominee, John McCain, recently proposed a National Gas-Tax Holiday to run from Memorial Day to Labor Day this year. The idea being that artificially lowering gas prices will provide economic relief for millions of Americans while stimulating the economy.
Please keep in mind that John McCain has previously admitted that economics is not his strong point.

But interestingly, Hillary Clinton has also jumped on the bandwagon and has even gone so far as to criticize her Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, for not hopping aboard as well. So who's right and who's wrong here?

From where I sit, this is not necessarily a bad idea, but is clearly not that well thought-out and should not be implemented. Let us consider the following economic concepts:

Supply - How much of something that is available. The Law of Supply tells us that all things being equal, the more of something there is, the lower demand will be (low scarcity), and therefore the more inexpensive it will be.
Demand - How much people want that something. The Law of Demand tell us that all things being equal, the more demand there is for something, the lower supply will be (high scarcity), and therefore the expensive it will be.
Scarcity - An indicator of the relationship between Supply and Demand.

So what do we know about gas prices in the Summer? They tend to be higher. Why do they tend to be higher? Because demand is high. Why is demand high? Because a lot of people travel (presumably for vacation) during the summer?

So, utilizing the laws of supply and demand, how can we use natural market tools to reduce gas prices during the Summer season? We can either:

a) Increase supply. Increasing supply will reduce scarcity for as long as supply can keep up with demand.

b) Decrease demand. Decreasing demand will also reduce scarcity so long as demand does not creep back above supply.

So why do I think the National Gas-Tax Holiday will fail? Because the proposal does not directly address either supply or demand (it does indirectly make a show of addressing supply by suggesting that we open up the Strategic Oil Reserves, but I agree with Bush that this is a bad idea. Yes, you heard me correctly :). More on this in a moment). What it will accomplish is artificially lowering gas prices on a temporary basis. But because we're not addressing supply or demand, what will happen?

That's right. Because demand is unaffected (all things being equal), there will still be a strain on supply and, guess what, natural market forces will drive the price of gas right back up again. So who will really get the gas-tax holiday?
The oil companiesWell, what about supply then? What can we do with supply? I suppose a couple of things.

a) We could increase oil production or
b) We could artificially flood the market with cheap oil

What's wrong with option "a"? We can't increase oil production, that's what. Oil refineries already run at-capacity during the Summer which is why gas prices usually spike even under normal conditions. Keep in mind that as Africa and the Middle East experience a lot instability, a monstrous proportion of our oil supply will be on shaky ground. And guess what that does to the oil market (hint: a barrel of crude went for approximately $34 the month we invaded Iraq).

So what about option "b"? From a logisitics standpoint, the Strategic Oil Reserves hold about 700 million barrels of oil. Americans consumer approximately 20 million barrels of oil per day. So we have about a month's supply. Granted, we'd only be supplementing the oil market rather than attempting to artificially sustain it, but the question remains: How much are we going to use? Also, how much is needed to make a significant difference?
[edit] FYI: according to wikipedia, we can only pull 4.4 million barrels per day presumably because of the logistics of moving that much oil.

From a strategic standpoint, this is foolish. I agree with President George W. Bush that tapping into the Reserves is a bad idea. That oil is there for when crisis strikes (i.e. Israel and Iran start nuking each other and a couple of missles go astray and hit Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, et cetera). Jeopardizing our long-term well being so that Jimmy can get Mickey ears at Disneyland is not what I consider to be a rational decision.

So what's left? It seems to me that if we want to keep gas affordable this Summer, the best way to do that is decrease demand (i.e. stay home). But the point of this thread was not to climb atop a soapbox and tell you want to do with your free time, rather to point out the interesting dynamics that this raises regarding the presidential race.

McCain has told us that he's not too good with the economics. I appreciate his honesty. Indeed that actually casts this decision in a light that I can easily understand. Knowing that he doesn't know what he's talking about makes it much easier for me to see him as an otherwise intelligent guy that just doesn't know a whole lot about this particular subject. Great. Now step away from the White House and let someone that knows what they're doing be President. Thanks.

Hillary is another story though. She's shown us time and time again that she's willing to say or do anything to secure the nomination. Is economics her strong point? She sure claims that it is. So I'm left to conclude that she probably knows better but is willing to screw us and help out her lobbist buddies in order to become President. This would seem to be pretty consistent with everything else she's done this campaign.

And what about Barack? He's the only one out of the there opposing the proposal. *Shrugs*. I can't help but think of all the times he's said that he won't tell us what we want to hear, but he will tell us what we need to hear.

Thanks for reading.

Totenkopf
04-30-2008, 01:40 PM
Was this an Obama '08 commercial? :xp:

I agree that tapping the strategic reserve is basically stupid. @18.4 cents/gal, that's a pitifully small economic stimulus that's good for ~4-5 months. Amounts to <$100 (perhaps as little as $25-50).

Your right about McCain being candid, as least, about his knowledge of economics. Sadly, he's probably the only one of the three that is. Guess that's why a president needs to pick good advisors/cabinet choices, since noone can know everything about everything.

EnderWiggin
04-30-2008, 02:12 PM
So wait a second Achilles.

Are you saying that there is nothing that we can do to lower the gas prices?

You gave two options.

One was to increase supply, which isn't a feasible option.
One was to decrease demand. You can't expect the government to tell me that I can't drive to where I need to go this summer in order to keep gas prices low.

And you say that this plan will temporarily lower the cost of fuel but the demand will strain supply and the prices will be raised to compensate. This would be a serious problem once the gas tax was reimplemented.

I can agree with all three of these points... but then what is a candidate to do?

And I also hope that you're not tauting Obama for his reservation. You and I may know what we need to hear, but the general public doesn't, and what they want to hear is what wins the votes. This won't get him in the white house, even if it is the right decision.

This coming from a person who will vote Obama in Nov. 08.

_EW_

MdKnightR
04-30-2008, 02:54 PM
Well, for once, I agree just shy of wholeheartedly with Achilles. That was wonderfully presented.

Now, as far as who to elect for president, I say the American people need to drop McCrack, Billary, and Osama and choose Ron Paul with the reasonable expectation that he will choose Walter Williams (an economist) as his running mate. :thumbsup:

Achilles
04-30-2008, 03:09 PM
So wait a second Achilles.

Are you saying that there is nothing that we can do to lower the gas prices? Not exactly. Decreasing demand will ease pressure on supply which will result in lower prices...until demand (use) starts going up again. But from a bigger perspective, I suppose you could say that there is nothing we can do. Depends on how deep into the issue you want to delve.

You gave two options.

One was to increase supply, which isn't a feasible option.Correct.

One was to decrease demand. You can't expect the government to tell me that I can't drive to where I need to go this summer in order to keep gas prices low. Yes and no. Decreasing demand will (all things being equal) drive prices down, however I'm not advocating that the government tell us to do anything. If we were to honestly assess the situation with all the facts, I think it would be in our best interests to voluntarily (i.e. of our own volition) not do a lot of driving this summer. Also, since this is a global energy issue, this goes for people not in the U.S. as well.

And you say that this plan will temporarily lower the cost of fuel but the demand will strain supply and the prices will be raised to compensate. This would be a serious problem once the gas tax was reimplemented. Yep and yep :)
Keep in mind that gas prices naturally dip in the Fall as the "Summer driving season" ends. If the sunset on the tax holiday and the natural market moves miss each other, then, yes, gas could be incredibly (and artificially) expensive for a few days or weeks.

I can agree with all three of these points... but then what is a candidate to do? Err...not lie to us or make stupid proposals for quick political gain? :D

And I also hope that you're not tauting Obama for his reservation. You and I may know what we need to hear, but the general public doesn't, and what they want to hear is what wins the votes. This won't get him in the white house, even if it is the right decision. How unfortunate, huh? :(

I guess the best we can try to do is help educate others.

This coming from a person who will vote Obama in Nov. 08. :D

Take care!

Web Rider
04-30-2008, 03:19 PM
So, we'll save...what, 18-30 cents a gallon? The average person will save at best 5 bucks a tank, unless you have in excess of a 30 gallon tank. States and the feds will severly suffer in terms of funds, road crews will essentially not get paid since their paychecks come out of the related car-tax funds.

So yeah, people will save 20 bucks in a month, between the two days, they'll sve a hundred bucks. Gee whizz McCain, you're a moron, you too Hillary.

The problem is price gouging from oil companies, and a weak dollar, not 20 cents of tax.

Achilles
04-30-2008, 03:29 PM
States and the feds will severly suffer in terms of funds, road crews will essentially not get paid since their paychecks come out of the related car-tax funds. Indeed. An excellent point that I failed to address in my post. Don't forget that we have bridges collapsing, etc as it is. :(

Totenkopf
04-30-2008, 03:37 PM
Well, the states won't go completely starved for 5 months as it's a federal moratorium that's being proposed, not the other ~28.5 cents/gal that the states average in gas taxes. Geez, guys, if you're going to "educate" people, try presenting more than just your slant. Also, one has to wonder where all the gas taxes have gone previously to this, as it's a pretty good bet that's where the money would go in the brief span as well. Just like the 18.5 c/gal tax won't do anything to stimulate the economy, it won't wreck America's infrastructure either. :rolleyes:

@MdKnightR-if he chose Walter Williams, that would be a good start.

Jae Onasi
04-30-2008, 03:50 PM
The analysis is good but there's one other variable that affects the supply, and that is the summer 'boutique' gas blends that artificially decrease supply. I live in the Milwaukee-Chicago megalopolis region, and come May, we switch from winter blend to summer blend gas to lower ozone emissions. We go from 1 (or a few) gas blend to 20+ types in the US in the summer (last I heard--numbers may have changed). That means that all the winter blend has to get used up before the deadline for the summer blends to be put in place at the pump, and if something happens to the refineries during the days or weeks they're making the blend for your particular area and it decreases the supply, the prices can (and have) skyrocket in your particular area. That's happened in my area--we've had some outrageous price spikes because the supply of our particular blend got nuked by some Gulf storms, the refineries couldn't catch up and we couldn't use blends used in one of the other 20+ areas.

So, in the summer we go from one large supply to 20+ smaller supplies, and that supply is much more sensitive to things like Gulf storms, pipeline breaks, oil prices, gov't instability in oil-producing nations, an oil executive sneezing, etc. That further aggravates and magnifies the problems that Achilles noted above.
Reps Blunt and Ryan have introduced The Boutique Fuel Reduction Act of 2007 (http://www.rdfabout.com/rdf/usgov/congress/110/bills/h5165) to deal with this problem. Unfortunately for us this year, it seems to be gathering dust in committee.

I'm all for cleaner air and reducing ozone, and I don't mind using a cleaner blend in the summer to do that (though I wonder why we aren't using them year round). However, it makes far more sense to have a few blends rather than the 20+ or more different kinds that I've heard are currently in existence.

Achilles
04-30-2008, 04:02 PM
Yep. In my posts, I made reference to "all things being equal" (ceteris paribus is the latin term that economists use). Economists use this to try to isolate factors in order to predict behavior in stable market. So under stable market conditions, supply and demand will drive prices up in the summer. Remove those parameters and toss in the general wackiness that Jae does a good job of outlining above and all bets are off.

Regardless, the proposed gas-tax holiday isn't going to accomplish much of anything aside from helping McCain and Clinton to give the appearance that they care about little people.

SilentScope001
04-30-2008, 05:05 PM
What's wrong with option "a"? We can't increase oil production, that's what.

Yes we could. One word: Alaska.

Oh wait, none of the candiantes want to drill there. Never mind.
***
On the other hand, yes I disagree with this gas-tax hoilday, but that doesn't mean I'll vote for Obama. You vote based on the 'package' of the person, not just on indivudal policies. I don't like McCain's position on this issue, but in the end, I hate Obama's positions on other issues. It is a known fact that you are the only person who knows what is right for America, and that everyone else are morons who don't know what to do. Venting about a person not adopting one single point isn't going to do well.

For one thing, the gas-tax holiday has been proposed several times, even by Presidental Candinate Bob Dole. Every time it got in Congress, it failed. Miserably. So, I doubt McCain and Clinton will ever get this passed.

Secondly, a gas tax hoilday at least save some money. Other, 'reasonable' policies will take more time, may not actually be effective as its defenders claim it would, and is rather likely to fail overall, because of the fact that we aren't the only consumers of oil. We got China, we got Russia, we got developing countries who are turning developed. So we are going to have to live with high gas prices for a long, long time. Hopefully, the Fed can start caring about inflation before it's too late.

What I...might...be open to is just decreasing the tax rate for the entire year, rather than just a holiday in general. And a previous Republican proposal to give us all $100 gas tax rebates actually now look reasonable, so I might be open to that too. But, eh.

The only thing I'm suprised is that I thought this gas-tax holiday would be nothing more than a gaffe and that nobody would care. I was wrong. Maybe McCain's policy isn't that terrible at all, and prehaps all this 'pandering' nonsense may actually be, I don't know, actual democracy in action, with presidental candinates actually listening to voters.

mimartin
04-30-2008, 06:48 PM
Yes we could. One word: Alaska.

Hit the nail on the head for the reason for the higher gasoline prices.

1. Oil companies and Chaney have secret meeting.
2. Administration policy becomes opening up the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve to exploration.
3. Congress does not approve proposal.
4. Gas prices climb to record highs while the same oil companies post recorded earnings.

Now the rest of the plan:

5. Popular opinion changes forcing congress to open AWAR to exploration.
6. Oil companies pay American Taxpayers next to nothing for drilling rights.
7. Due to cut in cost, oil companies continue to post record profits and the American taxpayer, use to three plus dollar gas prices, has the price cut to $2.75 a gallon and counts themselves luck.

Yea, it a win, win for big oil companies.

For what it is worth both Obama and Clinton stated in their last debate that the oil companies needed to be investigate. Great we spend millions on an investigation, but the blue print of this is safe for now, at least until George W. Bush records are released. By that time, one of the twins will be President so we will never know.

Well that is my conspiracy theory.

EnderWiggin
04-30-2008, 10:00 PM
Yes and no. Decreasing demand will (all things being equal) drive prices down, however I'm not advocating that the government tell us to do anything. If we were to honestly assess the situation with all the facts, I think it would be in our best interests to voluntarily (i.e. of our own volition) not do a lot of driving this summer. Also, since this is a global energy issue, this goes for people not in the U.S. as well.

....Achilles....... really? You and I both know that the public will never ever honestly assess the situation with all the facts first of all, and second of all make personal sacrifices for community- or even world-wide gain. So we here can limit our driving this summer, but the average American will never of their own free will decide to do so. So while this is a way that we can lower gas prices in theory, it is impractical to think that it can be implemented.


Err...not lie to us or make stupid proposals for quick political gain? :D

:lol: That would be quite unlike our politicians.

How unfortunate, huh? :(
It certainly is.


Take care!

To you too. :)

_EW_

PS. Yes we could. One word: Alaska.

No. Just No. :D

Achilles
05-01-2008, 12:26 AM
....Achilles....... really? Yeah. Really.

You and I both know that the public will never ever honestly assess the situation with all the facts first of all, and second of all make personal sacrifices for community- or even world-wide gain. So we here can limit our driving this summer, but the average American will never of their own free will decide to do so. So while this is a way that we can lower gas prices in theory, it is impractical to think that it can be implemented."Practicality" has absolutely nothing to do with whether this is the answer or not. It really doesn't. I think you might be mistaking my post for some sort of wake up call or call to arms. It isn't. I merely hope to draw your attention to which politicians are lying to you and which ones aren't (and hopefully what we stand to gain or lose via our participation or apathy).

:lol: That would be quite unlike our politicians. And politicians are elected how? They keep lying and we keep voting for them. Then we wonder why they keep lying. :)

EnderWiggin
05-01-2008, 12:30 AM
Yeah. Really.

:lol:



"Practicality" has absolutely nothing to do with whether this is the answer or not. It really doesn't. I think you might be mistaking my post for some sort of wake up call or call to arms. It isn't. I merely hope to draw your attention to which politicians are lying to you and which ones aren't (and hopefully what we stand to gain or lose via our participation or apathy).

Fair enough.


And politicians are elected how? They keep lying and we keep voting for them. Then we wonder why they keep lying. :)

I never disagreed.

:)

_EW_

Q
05-01-2008, 12:58 AM
Hit the nail on the head for the reason for the higher gasoline prices.

1. Oil companies and Chaney have secret meeting.
2. Administration policy becomes opening up the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve to exploration.
3. Congress does not approve proposal.
4. Gas prices climb to record highs while the same oil companies post recorded earnings.

Now the rest of the plan:

5. Popular opinion changes forcing congress to open AWAR to exploration.
6. Oil companies pay American Taxpayers next to nothing for drilling rights.
7. Due to cut in cost, oil companies continue to post record profits and the American taxpayer, use to three plus dollar gas prices, has the price cut to $2.75 a gallon and counts themselves luck.

Yea, it a win, win for big oil companies.

For what it is worth both Obama and Clinton stated in their last debate that the oil companies needed to be investigate. Great we spend millions on an investigation, but the blue print of this is safe for now, at least until George W. Bush records are released. By that time, one of the twins will be President so we will never know.

Well that is my conspiracy theory.
And a darn good one it is. I thought exactly the same thing before I read your post.

Totenkopf
05-01-2008, 02:49 AM
Just keep in mind that whatever "big oil" pays for those rights will only end up being reflected in the final cost of the end products. The more they pay....the more YOU pay.

mimartin
05-01-2008, 05:01 AM
Just keep in mind that whatever "big oil" pays for those rights will only end up being reflected in the final cost of the end products. The more they pay....the more YOU pay.
In theory…only in theory… Why do you think gas price go up without the station getting new inventory? I mean they know what the cost was to the station when it was unloaded from the truck. The cost to the manufacturer or the station has not changed, yet the price to the consumer goes up. The price on gas is based on the future price on oil, or in other words, it is all speculation. So let say they get the oil from AWAR (that is if there is oil in the quantity and quality we have been told at AWAR) at some ridiculous low cost, that would effect world wide supply and the future cost of oil. The savings would be past on based on the World Wide decrease oil prices, not the actually price of the oil taken from AWAR and cost to process that oil into gasoline. While Americans and the world market would save a little, the oil companies would continue to clean up (and I do not mean clean up the environment).

Totenkopf
05-01-2008, 06:28 AM
As I said before, the more "big oil" pays for the commodity, the more you pay for the end product. All corporate taxes are merely indirect taxes on the general population. Companies that don't make money go out of business or move into new opportunities. Seems to me that if you want to significantly lower the cost of oil, you have only a few options. Heavily regulate the commodity markets, strongarm OPEC or do a combo of opening up more access to source (ANWAR/offshore/synfuels like coal derviatives) while developing alternates to crude that would significantly lessen our dependency on that commodity. Or some combo of all of these. If you start penalizing the oil companies for "price gouging" (despite numerous congressional investigations, no proof of a conspiracy has ever been "found"), what industries come under the gun next? Agribiz? Big Pharma? Stadium prices (or any other "discretionary" expenditure on our parts)?

Jae Onasi
05-01-2008, 08:28 AM
I know we're going to decrease our driving this summer, except for a vacation that we had planned already (the Disneyworld pilgrimage). We may end up trading off comfort of the minivan for the better gas mileage of the Civic because we know gas prices in June are going to be atrocious.

The family's old enough that we can ride bikes and walk more often and farther, and I don't feel like contributing any more to oil corporation profits than I have to. Some of this may be self-correcting, too--at some point people are going to decide they just don't have enough money to pay for gas to drive, and demand will drop. Now, it may not drop _much_, but I don't think some families can take the price hit that we're expecting this summer.

mimartin
05-01-2008, 09:24 AM
Seems to me that if you want to significantly lower the cost of oil, you have only a few options.
By the same token (no pun intended), if you want to raise the speculated price of oil and thereby increase the price of gas. 1. Upset oil producing nations. 2. Un-stabilize the region, by say, starting a war in the middle of it. You don’t even have to go as far as doing either, just threats can spook investors and increase the cost of futures.

If you start penalizing the oil companies for "price gouging" (despite numerous congressional investigations, no proof of a conspiracy has ever been "found") I wrote in my first post in this thread that an investigation is useless, made all the more useless by that fact of how much money big oil companies pays Congress. Congress would spend millions of dollars, put on a good show for the voters and then do nothing.

I will continue this discussion if you want after today, but I will not be critical of oil companies after today or gas prices. After today, I will be one of the causes of increased gas prices so it would be hypocritical of me. I pick up my 16 mpg city Jeep this morning so I will be adding to demand.

Totenkopf
05-01-2008, 01:54 PM
I don't disagree with your first point. Open threats would certainly be seen as bluster and would result in upward pressure on prices if it then looked like you were going to follow through. There are likely other ways to strongarm than outright invasion. It's also likely that going after the speculators would require some kind of international cooperation to be effective, given that oil is a world market and not merely a national one. Equally true of currency manipulation in general.

To your second point, I'd say that's what many feel is/has been done now anyway. You can be as critical as you want about gas prices (food prices too), but know that any financial pressure on the oil companies will only likely be refelected at the pump as well in the end in the form of even higher prices. It would be interesting, even if only as an experiment, to see what a mass attempt at conserving fuel thru less driving would ultimately do to the price of oil and the economy at large. So, enjoy your jeep, but do so sparingly. ;)

ForeverNight
05-01-2008, 04:54 PM
Well... I can't say that I know everything about this issue, but it seems to me like it is a good idea, or, failing that, one that has merit... The tax holiday that is.

With the price of Crude rising, the price of gas goes up, and the Government gets the brilliant idea to tax the gas more! Brilliant idea, gas is already on the upward swing, and you decide to make it higher! Then complain about high gas prices!

That's Washington......

But, with the tax break, well, lets put it this way. It's what? 18.5 Cents tax per galleon that they're talking about taking off?

Gas around where I am is $3.239 for 87 Octane. Shaving 18.5 cents off that makes it $3.054 to the galleon. While that doesn't sound like much, I know that that in itself will save at least $1.80 a re-fill for my family's mini-van, probably more.

And, re-filling it about 1.5 times a week (Quick math in my head), that saves $2.70 a week, $10.80 a month and $54.00 in the five month period. That's enough for several refills that were previously covered.

And, I know that during the summer, our gas usage will go up -camping among other things- and, thus, the numbers above will change.

So, the Senator's proposal has merit... is it likely to pass? No. The Senate is filled with people who just want to either get elected, spend as much money as possible, or both. So, they will see the gas tax as a way to get more money in their coffers, and then spend MORE than what they will earn from it.

But, D.C. is not a place for responsible spenders... At least, that's how it seems from the outside.

Achilles
05-01-2008, 06:37 PM
With the price of Crude rising, the price of gas goes up, and the Government gets the brilliant idea to tax the gas more! Not quite. The idea is that they suspend the existing tax. No one is talking about increasing the tax.

Brilliant idea, gas is already on the upward swing, and you decide to make it higher! Then complain about high gas prices! Yeah, that would suck too if that was happening. Get this though: oil companies do currently collect subsidies. How awesome is that!?

But, with the tax break, well, lets put it this way. It's what? 18.5 Cents tax per galleon that they're talking about taking off? No not really. As I pointed out in the first post, those prices would only be artificially lowered until demand caught up and raised prices right back to where they would have been anyway. So yeah, you might save that $1.80 for a tank or two, but then you're right back where you were or worse.

In the mean time, that's 13.5 cents per gallon (times 400 billion gallons per day) of revenue that isn't paying for federal highway repair, bridge maintenance, etc.

So if that money isn't really being saved by us and the federal government isn't getting it, who is? The oil companies, that's who.

So, the Senator's proposal has merit... I respectfully disagree. The Senator's proposal is blatant pandering to anyone that has ever taken an Intro to Economics course.

But, D.C. is not a place for responsible spenders... At least, that's how it seems from the outside.You know, some of us could contact our elected officials and point out that this is a bad idea. Just a thought :D

Jae Onasi
05-01-2008, 07:04 PM
Here's the webpage for finding and contacting your Senators. (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm) This is the page for finding and contacting your Congressional Representative. (http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml)

You can sign up for newsletters from your Senators and Representative--I get one emailed from them regularly.

ForeverNight
05-01-2008, 07:15 PM
Sorry if I gave the impression that I was thinking of this in the terms of a suspension of the raising of taxes. In my earlier post I was referring to the new Federal Gas Tax that passed, last month or so.

And, you know, its amazing what happens once you really think something out and try to vocalize it.

Yeah, this isn't such a bright idea, much as I hate to say it. The Fed's to spend irresponsibly (And I just might contact an elected official about that too!) and, well, if we start cutting the income, they aren't going to cut their spending...

But, I still can't see this as blatant pandering. But, nor do I see it in McCain's justification. I think that it was more of a "Here, your gas just got a little more expensive for summer than in winter" instead of "Here, now vote for me!" or, "Here Exxon/Texaco/Shell/BP/et cetera."

I guess I still suffer from an abiding belief that the government really does try to do good stuff for the masses... when they aren't trying to get re-elected again, of course.

So, nix my last on this being a good idea.

And, well, if the money is going to go somewhere and its not the Federal Government, I would rather it went to the Oil Companies than somewhere else. At least, that way they can pour more into R&D and try to develop yet more efficient fuels than Gasoline, which is still the most efficient fuel we have yet. And, if they can produce more efficient fuels that don't need gasoline, or lesser amounts of it, than maybe we won't be in such problems when the countries that have Oil decide that we are infidels and deserve to die...

But that's a debate for another time... and place.

EnderWiggin
05-01-2008, 07:59 PM
No not really. As I pointed out in the first post, those prices would only be artificially lowered until demand caught up and raised prices right back to where they would have been anyway. So yeah, you might save that $1.80 for a tank or two, but then you're right back where you were or worse.

Pretty much, we would be double screwed. First screwed by the oil companies that would compensate for this increased demand, and then screwed by our own government when they do end up reimplementing this tax.

So why aren't Hil and McCain being rebuked for this more openly? They both are still supporting it, even though there has been some criticism. I think that someone should pretty much tell it to them straight - this is a bad plan. They need to cut their losses and stop backing it.

I feel that they either are ignorant of this problem or just too arrogant to admit their faults and move on.

I don't want either quality in a commander-in-chief.



In the mean time, that's 13.5 cents per gallon (times 400 billion gallons per day) of revenue that isn't paying for federal highway repair, bridge maintenance, etc.

Which is great. We actually should just stop highway maintenance altogether. It's not important or anything. :D


I respectfully disagree. The Senator's proposal is blatant pandering to anyone that has ever taken an Intro to Economics course.


I had a nice little chat with someone today on this subject that I... um... persuaded... to believe this viewpoint.

Sometimes all the public thinks about is the result for them - saving a few bucks. How sad. :(

_EW_

tk102
05-01-2008, 08:49 PM
Pretty much, we would be double screwed. First screwed by the oil companies that would compensate for this increased demand, and then screwed by our own government when they do end up reimplementing this tax. More tax-cuts to be made permanent under McCain.
:hang1:
So why aren't Hil and McCain being rebuked for this more openly? They both are still supporting it, even though there has been some criticism. I think that someone should pretty much tell it to them straight - this is a bad plan. They need to cut their losses and stop backing it.
Agreed. It seems that the Speaker of the House and the House Majority Leader are saying it basically doesn't have much foothold in Congress:
On Wednesday, it was House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) who said he would not favor a tax holiday. But the signal that the proposals would have little chance of passage for this summer came Thursday, from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). In a press conference, she said she did not support the idea and would not be pushing for it. Asked for her specific objections, Pelosi said, "There is no reason to believe any moratorium on the gas tax will be passed on to consumers. That's first and foremost... Second of all, it would defeat everything that we have been trying to do to lower the cost of oil." ~ Source (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/05/01/tax_clinton/index.html)

Totenkopf
05-02-2008, 12:53 AM
More tax-cuts to be made permanent under McCain.
:hang1:

Agreed. It seems that the Speaker of the House and the House Majority Leader are saying it basically doesn't have much foothold in Congress:
~ Source (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/05/01/tax_clinton/index.html)


Well, let's face it, it's rare that Congress ever approves of any measure they think robs them of "their" money. Probably why you get sunsets on tax breaks but not taxes.

Achilles
05-02-2008, 06:33 AM
But, I still can't see this as blatant pandering.That's fine, but I can't see it as anything else. The economics don't add up so I can't believe that economic advisors are pushing this. The only thing that makes sense to me (and I'd love to be wrong on this) is politicians looking to score quick politial points by appearing to sympathize with "normal Americans" while lining the pockets of the lobbists that fund their campaigns (except Obama's).

But, nor do I see it in McCain's justification. I think that it was more of a "Here, your gas just got a little more expensive for summer than in winter" instead of "Here, now vote for me!" or, "Here Exxon/Texaco/Shell/BP/et cetera." You and I are both entitled to our opinions. Again, it doesn't make sense economically, so I suspect there is some other motivation at work.

I guess I still suffer from an abiding belief that the government really does try to do good stuff for the masses... when they aren't trying to get re-elected again, of course. Or just elected, period ;)

And, well, if the money is going to go somewhere and its not the Federal Government, I would rather it went to the Oil Companies than somewhere else. At least, that way they can pour more into R&D and try to develop yet more efficient fuels than Gasoline, which is still the most efficient fuel we have yet. A lot of things wrong with this, but I'll stick to the most glaring issue:

Why would oil companies be dropping more money into R&D for alternative fuels when scarcity is driving the price of oil up? There are still trillions of dollars in oil to be made. Do you think they are going to walk away from that? You think they'll leave that kind of money on the table? Do you think their investors will let them?

Remember that as oil becomes more scarce, the more profitable it will become. There are many oil fields that still have lots of oil that hasn't been pulled because it isn't profitable to do so. As prices rise, profitability increases and the easier it will become for those fields to be revisited. Look for oil shale and synthetics derived from coal to do the same thing.

And, if they can produce more efficient fuels that don't need gasoline, or lesser amounts of it, than maybe we won't be in such problems when the countries that have Oil decide that we are infidels and deserve to die... Except that our companies are heavily investing in the infrastructure in those countries. Good luck convincing them to abandon their investments when there are still profits to be made.

So why aren't Hil and McCain being rebuked for this more openly? Rebuked by who? The minority of Americans that know better? Or by the majority of Americans that have never taken a macro-economics course that only see what the evening news tells them to see?

They both are still supporting it, even though there has been some criticism. I think that someone should pretty much tell it to them straight - this is a bad plan. They need to cut their losses and stop backing it. The cynical view might be that they know it's garbage but also know that most of their audience will only see what they want them to see. My 2 cents.

I feel that they either are ignorant of this problem or just too arrogant to admit their faults and move on. Or something else entirely.

I don't want either quality in a commander-in-chief. Don't think intentional deception would rank too highly either ;)

But perhaps you are right and I should give them the benefit of the doubt by assuming that they are legitimately too uneducated to know better. That's reassuring :D

Which is great. We actually should just stop highway maintenance altogether. It's not important or anything. :D Precisely my argument as well ;)

EnderWiggin
05-02-2008, 06:52 AM
Rebuked by who? The minority of Americans that know better? Or by the majority of Americans that have never taken a macro-economics course that only see what the evening news tells them to see?

....perhaps the evening news? Those who have the power to educate the public as to what this plan really will do.


The cynical view might be that they know it's garbage but also know that most of their audience will only see what they want them to see. My 2 cents.


You seem to have even less faith in the political process than I first thought. :D


Or something else entirely.

That they're trying to fool the public? Won't that come back to bite them when it doesn't work? Or are you saying that they're purposefully using it as a ploy, knowing it won't ever pass? (Thanks for that source, TK.)



Don't think intentional deception would rank too highly either ;)

Very true. :)


But perhaps you are right and I should give them the benefit of the doubt by assuming that they are legitimately too uneducated to know better. That's reassuring.

I don't know which is worse.

_EW_

Achilles
05-02-2008, 07:13 AM
....perhaps the evening news? Those who have the power to educate the public as to what this plan really will do. My turn to lol :lol:

Are you referring to the info-tainment that passes for journalism nowadays? :D

Yes, I agree that would be nice.

You seem to have even less faith in the political process than I first thought. :D I have absolute faith in the political process. I have very little faith in the "educated citizenry" that the Framers were counting on to keep the system in check.

That they're trying to fool the public? Won't that come back to bite them when it doesn't work? Or are you saying that they're purposefully using it as a ploy, knowing it won't ever pass? (Thanks for that source, TK.) Indeed, I say it is a possibility. This is the same public that blindly buys into voting against the estate tax simply because conservative successfully repackage it as "the Death Tax". The same voting public that supported tax cuts that benefited the wealthiest of americans because all they saw was the $500 checks they got in the mail a few years ago. The same public that welcomed the draw-down of soldiers in Iraq, even though the reality was that this was a planned part of "The Surge". The same public that blindly attributes the reduction in violence to "The Surge" rather than al-Sadr's cease fire. The same public that seems to have missed the fact that Bush has changed his justification for going after Saddam about 4 times. Shall I go on?

I don't know which is worse.Mistakes can be forgiven, if the person who makes them acknowledges the error. Lying on the other hand...

EnderWiggin
05-02-2008, 01:58 PM
My turn to lol :lol:

Are you referring to the info-tainment that passes for journalism nowadays? :D

Yes, I agree that would be nice.

Yeah, I know. It's a damn shame.

I have absolute faith in the political process. I have very little faith in the "educated citizenry" that the Framers were counting on to keep the system in check.
Tomato, Tomahto. :)
Shall I go on?
I'm sure you can, but it's making me a bit depressed.. so.... no thanks.

Mistakes can be forgiven, if the person who makes them acknowledges the error. Lying on the other hand...
When the mistakes are on this grand of a scale, I don't think there's an opportunity for them to be forgiven. Mistakes cost lives. Lying cost lives. They're both unacceptable in my book.

_EW_

mimartin
05-02-2008, 03:09 PM
Mistakes can be forgiven, if the person who makes them acknowledges the error.When the mistakes are on this grand of a scale, I don't think there's an opportunity for them to be forgiven. Mistakes cost lives. Lying cost lives. They're both unacceptable in my book.
I don’t really care about the scale of a mistake. To me all mistakes are forgivable provide the person making the mistake learns from their error. We all make mistakes in judgment, learning from the mistake “should” enable us to avoid the same type of mistake in the future. Mistakes IMO are part of the learning process. Now if someone continues to do the same thing with the same results, that is no longer a mistake, it is stupidity.

Just acknowledging the mistake is not enough, we most also learn from them.

Lying on the other hand proves stupidity without the mistakes.

SilentScope001
05-02-2008, 03:21 PM
Mistakes can be forgiven, if the person who makes them acknowledges the error.

When the mistakes are on this grand of a scale, I don't think there's an opportunity for them to be forgiven. Mistakes cost lives. Lying cost lives. They're both unacceptable in my book.

Uh. A tax cut is not going to kill people. (unless you happen to be an economist who worries that every dollar being spent unwisely will cause catospheratic errors). Relax.

Or, in other words, get back on topic!

Totenkopf
05-02-2008, 03:30 PM
In the mean time, that's 13.5 cents per gallon (times 400 billion gallons per day) of revenue that isn't paying for federal highway repair, bridge maintenance, etc.
:D

Check yourt figures.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question417.htm
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/a_picture_is_wo.php

Claiming 400 BILLION is as bad as saying something is costing someone $1000 per day when the actual cost is somewhere between $1-2/day. Another example where the narrative is more important than the facts, I supose. Of course, if you're really as concerned as you let on about the need for infrastructure repair, perhaps you should call for an increase in gasoline taxes. Question is, will you be able to hold the politicians feet to the fire enough to make sure the money actually goes where it's supposed to?


Indeed, I say it is a possibility. This is the same public that blindly buys into voting against the estate tax simply because conservative successfully repackage it as "the Death Tax". The same voting public that supported tax cuts that benefited the wealthiest of americans because all they saw was the $500 checks they got in the mail a few years ago. The same public that welcomed the draw-down of soldiers in Iraq, even though the reality was that this was a planned part of "The Surge". The same public that blindly attributes the reduction in violence to "The Surge" rather than al-Sadr's cease fire. The same public that seems to have missed the fact that Bush has changed his justification for going after Saddam about 4 times. Shall I go on?

Perhaps you mean the same public that doesn't blindly believe in 2x taxation on income previously taxed (not including sales taxes). By what right should the government get to tax you again on the income you made over the course of your lifetime AND then seize upwards of 45-55% of it when you die? Fiat? If so, then I suppose govt should be allowed to do pretty much whatever it wants. Afterall, it's got all those guns AND the law ( :lol: ) on its side. Or is it just class envy in play here? Afterall, the "death tax" is only aimed at a relatively small number of people as a % of the general population. Of course, US military activity had NOTHING to do with Sadr's ceasefire offer, right? Sort of like giving Gorby credit for the fall of the USSR when it was Reagan that pushed him over the edge.

mimartin
05-02-2008, 04:09 PM
Uh. A tax cut is not going to kill people.
Less spending on bridges and highways could not possible kill people?

Your right, we will just continue to spend the money and let the next generation pay the bill. How they are paying for all this should be an issue to all Americans and not just economist.

Perhaps you mean the same public that doesn't blindly believe in 2x taxation on income previously taxed (not including sales taxes). But, they do. Why am I even paying a gas taxes with income that has already been taxed on the federal and state level?

Totenkopf
05-02-2008, 04:45 PM
Hence the comment above about sales taxes being excepted (though I'm sure many wouldn't mind seeing those disappear or be reduced).

Achilles
05-02-2008, 04:59 PM
Less spending on bridges and highways could not possible kill people? Apparently the bridge collapse in Minnesota that killed 13 people last August wasn't sufficiently fused into the public consciousness.

But, they do. Why am I even paying a gas taxes with income that has already been taxed on the federal and state level? Or heck, sales tax in general.

EnderWiggin
05-02-2008, 05:09 PM
Uh. A tax cut is not going to kill people. (unless you happen to be an economist who worries that every dollar being spent unwisely will cause catospheratic errors). Relax. Or, in other words, get back on topic!

:confused:

First of all, I agree with mimartin. Bridge repair can cost lives. Second of all, errors/deceptions, even in the economy, can in fact be catastrophic. Ever heard of the great depression? Third of all, the topic happened to sort of involve the candidates and which ones were for and against this, which would make this discussion line quite relevant to our talkings here.

Lastly, it was something we were discussing with Achilles, who happens to be the Original Poster, so telling us all to get back on topic was a bit overzealous. :disaprove

_EW_

EDIT::
Apparently the bridge collapse in Minnesota that killed 13 people last August wasn't sufficiently fused into the public consciousness.

QFE.

Totenkopf
05-02-2008, 05:36 PM
Perhaps, though, the real question ought to be why you're paying income taxes in the first place. Frankly, in the case of the estate tax, people pay taxes on their income. They pay taxes on the purchase of their estate. They pay taxes for the upkeep of the estate as well as property taxes in general. Then they pay taxes on any income derived from their estate. Finally the coup de grace, the "state" seizes an inordinate percentage of the value of their estate upon death. I'm guessing that only socialists and communists don't have a problem with this setup. Oh, wait, it's only the rich that are affected. If liberals are in power, I'd be wary of that kind of outlook, b/c they are always defining rich down.

Jae Onasi
05-02-2008, 11:36 PM
Uh. A tax cut is not going to kill people. (unless you happen to be an economist who worries that every dollar being spent unwisely will cause catospheratic errors). Relax. Or, in other words, get back on topic!
Lastly, it was something we were discussing with Achilles, who happens to be the Original Poster, so telling us all to get back on topic was a bit overzealous.
Yes, things are generally fine in the topic department.

Leave the moderating to the moderators please, kthx

Tommycat
05-03-2008, 12:25 AM
Hey mimartin, how about the opposite side of the coin for the environmentalists.

People like their big gas guzzling cars.
Automakers aren't selling any of their overpriced econoboxes in the US.
They make a deal with the oil companies to get them to raise prices so that people will get rid of the Suburbans and Excursions and buy the econoboxes.

As for why gas prices go up in between fuel delivery:
Unfortunately the gas station has little say in the matter. Their suppliers are the ones who tell them what to set their prices to. If they don't, the supplier will cut them off. I was actually in the back office as I listened to a manager arguing with his supplier about having to further raise his prices. It was not a happy conversation.

Oil companies:
They are publicly traded companies. Lots of people have them in their retirement funds(even without their knowledge). So, do you want to destroy people's retirement funds? :D

mimartin
05-03-2008, 12:44 AM
So, do you want to destroy people's retirement funds?Never said I did. Even said an investigation was a waste of money and time lawmaker could be wasting elsewhere. Besides, I never said I did not own stock in the oil industry, did I? As part of a diversified portfolio, I recommend investing with many different companies in different industries and stay away from companies that use Star Wars names where George Lucas isn’t the main stockholder.

Automakers aren't selling any of their overpriced econoboxes in the US.You may want to talk to Achilles about this one. :D I believe he bought what you would describe an econobox. I also know a few other fellow member own them. Personally, I now own the gas-guzzler of my dreams.

Tommycat
05-03-2008, 01:01 AM
Never said I did. Even said an investigation was a waste of money and time lawmaker could be wasting elsewhere. Besides, I never said I did not own stock in the oil industry, did I? As part of a diversified portfolio, I recommend investing with many different companies in different industries and stay away from companies that use Star Wars names where George Lucas isn’t the main stockholder.
Yeah I forgot to include the icon when I posted that. It was meant sorta tongue in cheek.

You may want to talk to Achilles about this one. :D I believe he bought what you would describe an econobox. I also know a few other fellow member own them. Personally, I now own the gas-guzzler of my dreams.
I'm actually one that decided to get rid of my Suburban for a far more fuel efficient Impala. Driving 40+ miles a day it made more sense than the burb. Of course being over 6 foot tall, I couldn't go with a small vehicle. I like my knees, but not enough to eat them. What I'm saying is that it could be auto manufacturers dealing in secret back rooms with oil companies to raise prices to get their cars, that they have spent great sums of cash developing, sold. The oil company gets the benefit of the auto manufacturers not releasing gasoline free cars.

El Sitherino
05-03-2008, 01:13 AM
Maybe he means they will be cutting out the artificial increase in cost placed on gasoline by the companies.

That's just my guess, however.

mimartin
05-03-2008, 01:29 AM
While your conspiracy theory is probably as true as mine, the problem with your theory is the gas prices are hurting the American Auto Industry. Six months ago, Jeep dealerships would not negotiate the price of the 4-door Jeep. They were selling as fast as they came in, but the same sells person that turned me down then, negotiated with me when I made my purchase. They gave me a better deal than what I would have settled for after researching their cost. I work in the insurance industry and the new cars my customers are purchasing most are Nissans, Hondas and Toyotas. There is also a huge influx of new Motorcycle purchases and drivers. That reminds me, I need to start looking into medical stocks. :D

My conspiracy theory only had to do with the American Oil Companies getting what they and the Bush administration wanted. Low cost oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The only way that will ever happen is to change public opinion. Hit an American in the pocket book long enough and their opinion will change.

El Sitherino
05-03-2008, 01:32 AM
I hardly see how the Oil and Gas companies care about the well being of the car manufacturers. They have their own means of building back up sales, don't you see those "Hi I'm CRAZY *insert name here*! I'm selling cars for a low low price you couldn't even believe if I were signing your deal right now!" There's also the manufacturer issued deals, etc.

As well, it's not a conspiracy. A simple run through of the Oil Industries annual take in will show you the blatantly obvious.

mimartin
05-03-2008, 01:43 AM
Oh I agree with everything you’ve stated, El Sitherino, the conspiracy theory I was speaking about was mine from post 12 (http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2457706&postcount=12) in this thread.

A simple run through of the Oil Industries annual take in will show you the blatantly obvious. QFT

El Sitherino
05-03-2008, 01:57 AM
I think people are upset about this promise for the wrong reason, it's not that McCain is bull****ting because such a feat is not going to do anything but cause the government economic harm. This is not the truth, especially if it's just taking off the frivolous over-inflated increase.

If people are going to be upset about this, it should be for a politician once again promising something that will not be followed through with. Call me cynical, but I prefer to take my politicians words with a heavy grain of salt. Like those 80lb cubes they sell at feed stores for farms.

Tommycat
05-03-2008, 02:12 AM
Well believe it or not, we don't have an oil shortage. We have oil, but the refineries are the bottleneck right now. So McCain's plan is going to be about as effective as the "Don't fill up your tank this Wednesday"

We get less than 10% of our oil from the middle east. The majority comes from Venezuela. So blaming the inflated prices on the middle east is kinda disingenuous. Though it is at least in part to blame for it. shipping fuel from the US to the middle east for our military has helped drive up the cost. That's something that just seems too silly to believe. We are shipping fuel from the US to our military in Iraq... Iraq is selling us oil that they ship to the US.... Um anyone else see anything silly about that?

The blame goes all around for high prices though.

Oil Companies: For overinflated prices. They get the first blame, but are pretty low on the blame scale.

The Government: For oddball restrictions on building refineries, emissions standards that increased emissions and decreased fuel efficiency.

The auto manufacturers: For making vehicles that drank gas for so long.

The Consumer: Ultimately it's OUR fault. We use the fuel. We buy the big SUV that gets 3 GPM. We refuse to take public transportation. We are the ones PAYING the high price.

Achilles
05-03-2008, 02:51 AM
We get less than 10% of our oil from the middle east. The majority comes from Venezuela. That's not what this (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm) says.

PS: Thanks NAFTA! :)

So blaming the inflated prices on the middle east is kinda disingenuous. Though it is at least in part to blame for it. shipping fuel from the US to the middle east for our military has helped drive up the cost. That's something that just seems too silly to believe. We are shipping fuel from the US to our military in Iraq... Iraq is selling us oil that they ship to the US.... Um anyone else see anything silly about that? I guess I'd need to see a source first. *shrugs*

The Consumer: Ultimately it's OUR fault. We use the fuel. We buy the big SUV that gets 3 GPM. We refuse to take public transportation. We are the ones PAYING the high price.QFT

mimartin
05-03-2008, 02:56 AM
Oil prices are based on speculation in a world market. War in an oil producing area causes instability within the region and increases the real and perceived threat to the supply of oil, which in turn increases the speculated price because the future supply is less predictable. Since the world market sets the price, where the U.S. receives its oil from does not matter; unless some country is willing sell it to us at a discounted rate. If we were producing 100% of our own oil, the price would still be the same. That is if we were still competing in the world market without artificial government restrictions (companies not allowed to sell to higher bidder outside of U.S. and government had price barriers) or other government subsidizes.

This price increase I blame mainly on the American people for allowing our government to destabilize an oil-producing region more than necessary to accomplish the goal of going after the people that attacked us on September 11, 2001. Everyone in Washington with half a brain knew this would happen considering it happened before during the first Gulf War. Only difference is this time we are staying a little longer and there is no end in sight, there we go with not having a predictable future again. The unknown is always bad for oil prices.

Tommycat
05-03-2008, 03:09 AM
Thanks for the chart. Seems rather strange that we're getting more from Canada than any other single source.
As for the source, on my other statement, Meh I heard it on the news. CNN a few weeks or months back. Had something to do with contracted fuel delivery blah blah... I'm sure you'll enjoy the opportunity to take a jab at Cheney because of his former Halliburton ties.

@mimartin: Well even without the war, we would have seen severe market instability. The war pretty well localized it mainly to oil. As you know the stock market likes stability. With the Republicans controlling both houses of congress and the white house, they were passing a bunch of laws. The market HATES that. It tends to do much better when there is a lame duck president that cannot get anything done because congress won't let him/her. Stagnation in the government makes for a thriving market. Part of why the Clinton presidency was so good was that congress hated him. He didn't like them much either. Basically nothing got done.

mimartin
05-03-2008, 03:46 AM
Yes, and I was only speaking to oil and the effect the uncertainty of supply is having on the price of oil.

The economy is not much better; the price of diesel is having a profound effect on products including food and every other product that uses truckers for delivery or production. I really love today’s talking heads on television saying that the economy isn’t so bad because the job loss rate was less than predicted. We are still talking about 260,000 people losing their jobs in the last 4 months. Most networks also fail to mention the estimates built into the report; if overoptimistic data are used it could inflate the numbers of jobs (construction sector). Found it funny that Fox News was the only one I saw report that. I thought they were the conservative network; guess Ann Coulter really doesn’t want McCain elected.

Achilles
05-03-2008, 04:03 AM
Yeah, love that they remove food and energy costs from the equation when trying to calculate inflation.

"Guess what guys! No recession. The economy grew by 0.6% last month! ...except were not counting the stuff that's breaking everyone's balls right now"

mimartin
05-03-2008, 09:47 AM
Yeah, love that they remove food and energy costs from the equation when trying to calculate inflation.If they would have done that in the 1970s, I wonder if Jimmy Carter would have gotten a second term. If so, most Americans may have never heard of supply side economics or the better description “voodoo economics" today.

Tommycat
05-03-2008, 10:13 PM
Found it funny that Fox News was the only one I saw report that. I thought they were the conservative network; guess Ann Coulter really doesn’t want McCain elected.
It's not too suprising when you take into account that Fox likes to make CNN look bad. And quite honestly, I think most of the conservative talking heads don't like McCain. They just dislike him less than the ones with the D next to their name. I like him for admitting his failings(ironically the reason I like Obama as well). I'd rather have someone in the White House that knows he isn't divine or blessed by God, or has delusions of being perfect. So far the only candidate that would really scare me if she were to get into office is Clinton.

Achilles
06-02-2008, 05:35 PM
You know, it was hard enough admitting that I agreed with George Bush on something but now I have to agree with Dick Cheney (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/02/AR2008060201856.html?nav=rss_email/components) too? This is unacceptable.

EnderWiggin
06-02-2008, 05:39 PM
You know, it was hard enough admitting that I agreed with George Bush on something but now I have to agree with Dick Cheney (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/02/AR2008060201856.html?nav=rss_email/components) too? This is unacceptable.

Ouch! That must really make you question yourself. I'd take a good hard look in the mirror just to make sure :D

_EW_

Achilles
06-02-2008, 05:50 PM
Ouch! That must really make you question yourself. I'd take a good hard look in the mirror just to make sure :DThat's right, rub it in :dozey: :)

I do have to wonder though, this pretty much disappeared weeks ago. Why would Cheney all of a sudden resurrect this issue? Maybe to counter the "Bush/McCain = McSame" rheoric by trying to show that Obama agrees with Bush/Cheney? Help me out here.

EnderWiggin
06-02-2008, 06:11 PM
That's right, rub it in :dozey: :)

I do have to wonder though, this pretty much disappeared weeks ago. Why would Cheney all of a sudden resurrect this issue? Maybe to counter the "Bush/McCain = McSame" rheoric by trying to show that Obama agrees with Bush/Cheney? Help me out here.

I'm afraid I can't. Any of us who believe the McSame rhetoric won't be swayed by a trivial Dick comment. If that's the reason then I think the attempt is futile.

As to what he's trying to accomplish, if not that: I can't even begin to guess.

_EW_

Achilles
06-02-2008, 06:18 PM
I'm afraid I can't. Any of us who believe the McSame rhetoric won't be swayed by a trivial Dick comment. If that's the reason then I think the attempt is futile. Meh, but what about casual voters (you know, the ones that still think Obama is a muslim)? People with busy lives and not much interest in politics only need the headlines to be persuaded. But at the same time, would such a ploy be too nuanced for this audience? Probably. Unless it is intended to be the first volley of a larger campaign. Ugh. Can't quite wrap my head around it.

As to what he's trying to accomplish, if not that: I can't even begin to guess.Glad I'm not alone.

Jae Onasi
06-02-2008, 11:51 PM
You know, it was hard enough admitting that I agreed with George Bush on something but now I have to agree with Dick Cheney (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/02/AR2008060201856.html?nav=rss_email/components) too? This is unacceptable.

The Lord moves in mysterious ways.... ;P

Clinton called for a vote on this issue on May 2nd, so I'm not sure that it could have been characterized as actually disappearing weeks ago. Brought up weeks ago (if you call a month 'weeks ago'), maybe, but not disappeared.

The Puerto Rican primary was yesterday--that might have been part of the reason for bringing it up.

EnderWiggin
06-03-2008, 05:31 PM
I don't think that the casual voters will even be affected. I'm also not sure why the Puerto Rican primary would have affected it. Could you clarify, Jae?

_EW_