[QUOTE=unconventional]
The tax holiday really doesn’t amount to much savings, a couple of bucks on fill ups for most drivers. I’ve read the soaring oil and food prices are a commodities bubble which HRC alluded to in one of her stump speeches today.
[/QUOTE]
Well, combine that with the mortgage crisis bailout that a $1,200 tax rabate will provide and every American will be living on the sunny sie of the street in no time.
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
And these two rocket scientists think that cutting the price of gas is going to improve this situation…how?
[/quote]
By improving their chances of getting elected President.
Oh, wait .. you thought a policy proposal during a campaign represents actual intent? You really need to pay more attention.
[QUOTE=Merijeek]
Not to agree with Quartz, who is an idiot
[/QUOTE]
Ah, it’s nice to know that reasoned argument is alive and well. Yes, I know we’re in the Pit.
I fear you are correct; I hope for the best.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Anyone remember when gas was $2.00 a gallon and calls for increasing the tax to maybe reduce consumption and fund decent research was met with gasps of horror. How they said the economy would tank and people would suffer with gas at $2.25?
[/QUOTE]
Well, hasn’t it?
One thing that has been overlooked here is that the money raised from these gas taxes goes to rebuilding and maintaining the infrastructure. I’m not a fearmonger or anything, but I distinctly remember the results of poor maintenance and lack of infrastructure investment lying in a river in Minnesota last year. I would respectfully submit that putting off maintenance due to a funding shortfall will not exactly help the situation. Add to that even a modest increase in usage due to price reductions and we strain it further.
I hate taxes, but even I am willing to go to bat for this one.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Oh, wait .. you thought a policy proposal during a campaign represents actual intent? You really need to pay more attention.
[/QUOTE]
Really? You’re gonna go with that? How very curious…
I’d not bring it up except that you’ve argued so vehemently and tenaciously for Clinton. So, does this line of thinking apply to all policy proposals that pass through Clinton’s mouth? If not, how are we to distinguish her actual intent?
Sure enough Hillary is attacking Obama over this in her new ad. Theres nothing stupid about her support for the tax cut.
[QUOTE=5-4-Fighting]
Well, combine that with the mortgage crisis bailout that a $1,200 tax rabate will provide and every American will be living on the sunny sie of the street in no time.
[/QUOTE]
Happy Days are here again!
[QUOTE=5-4-Fighting]
Well, combine that with the mortgage crisis bailout that a $1,200 tax rabate will provide and every American will be living on the sunny sie of the street in no time.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting…
Anyone have the dollar figures on the mortgage bailout (so far) versus the “Vote Incumbent” bribe?
-Joe
[QUOTE=DigitalC]
Sure enough Hillary is attacking Obama over this in her new ad. Theres nothing stupid about her support for the tax cut.
[/QUOTE]
You know, except for reality…
Seriously, the fact that we’ve descended to the point where treating Americans like adults and expecting them to understand reason is political suicide fills me with despair.
[QUOTE=Digital Stimulus]
So, does this line of thinking apply to all policy proposals that pass through Clinton’s mouth?
[/QUOTE]
To the same degree as it does through Obama’s - and, as you’ll recall, they’re mostly the same thing, hmm?
You sound as if this is the first campaign you’ve ever paid attention to. This one is being conducted no differently than the usual pattern, by any of the 3, all of whom have succeeded to this point because of that.
Gimme a break and go do your history homework, kid.
You know, gas is considerably more elastic when you start looking at three and five and ten year time frames, and this isn’t a temporary supply-shock type rise in demand where you just have to worry about right now. Gas prices are not going down, and people will start to buy more efficient cars, take jobs closer to home, stop visiting their mom across town quite so often, etc., etc.
Interestingly, the story on this in the San Jose Mercury points out the Obama voted 3 times to temporarily suspend the IL gas tax when he was in the state legislature. No details as to why he did it back then.
[QUOTE=Digital Stimulus]
I’d not bring it up except that you’ve argued so vehemently and tenaciously for Clinton. So, does this line of thinking apply to all policy proposals that pass through Clinton’s mouth? If not, how are we to distinguish her actual intent?
[/QUOTE]
I think it’s fair to say that policy proposals made during the primaries don’t count as intent. Their very nature forces candidates to pretend to be less centrist than they really are.
Once the actual election cycle begins, I think we can fairly expect candidates to honor pledges made once in office.
Of course, none of them will- of the last three Presidents, two have completely failed to deliver on the major elements of their respective platforms. That’s why they call these things “campaign promises” instead of “promises”. Clinton probably did too, but I don’t know what his major campaign pledges were.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
To the same degree as it does through Obama’s - and, as you’ll recall, they’re mostly the same thing, hmm?
You sound as if this is the first campaign you’ve ever paid attention to. This one is being conducted no differently than the usual pattern, by any of the 3, all of whom have succeeded to this point because of that.
Gimme a break and go do your history homework, kid.
[/QUOTE]
Hey, fuck you, you disingenuous, bitter, Republican wannabe. It’s certainly not my fault that you have to argue from the point of view that the candidate you back is an unmitigated liar. Here’s a rallying cry it seems you’d get behind: Clinton '08: Never Enough Bush in DC. Or, how about: Hillary '08: The Mis-leader You’ve Been Waiting For.
Evidently, according to you, we actually don’t know that Clinton and Obama’s policy proposals are “mostly the same thing”, at least not as items deserving enactment. I’ll pose the question again: if Clinton is expected to lie about (some) policy issues she advances solely to get elected, how are we to distinguish her actual intent?
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
I think it’s fair to say that policy proposals made during the primaries don’t count as intent. Their very nature forces candidates to pretend to be less centrist than they really are.
[/quote]
I don’t think anyone can argue the political savvy of choosing to advance certain policies at certain times in a campaign. However, ISTM that a candidate should never advance a policy that he/she doesn’t at least hope will be enacted. Even if there’s no realistic chance of it happening (due to political reality, lack of funding, etc.). Else, why pay attention to their platforms at all?
But this doesn’t rise to the level of a “pledge”. Rather, it’s merely a proposal – one that demonstrates how the candidate views an issue (and it’s subsequent solution).
Again, this doesn’t rise to the level of a “pledge” or “promise”. Interestingly, it thus carries less import in my eyes; it’s not something that forms a core plank in a platform. What got me is the unabashed acknowledgement and acceptance that Hillary is flat out lying as a matter of political expediency, and the further implication that we should be OK with that.
[QUOTE=Digital Stimulus]
What got me is the unabashed acknowledgement and acceptance that Hillary is flat out lying as a matter of political expediency, and the further implication that we should be OK with that.
[/QUOTE]
Why shouldn’t we be okay with it? After all, only Obama is expected to be “above-it-all” and only expected to always act in ways that further his elevation to sainthood; any behavior that is human or, heavem forbid, smells of politics in any way is strictly forbidden.
[QUOTE=Digital Stimulus]
Again, this doesn’t rise to the level of a “pledge” or “promise”. Interestingly, it thus carries less import in my eyes; it’s not something that forms a core plank in a platform. What got me is the unabashed acknowledgement and acceptance that Hillary is flat out lying as a matter of political expediency, and the further implication that we should be OK with that.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think she’s lying at all - she probably does hope that this measure passes. She’s just not upfront about her reasoning - she knows it won’t do anything for the economy, but it will do wonders for her campaign if she can claim that she is partly responsible for a drop in the price of gasoline.
(assuming this does result in a short-term drop, which I think is likely, even if it causes an increase over the long term)
A Bush aide stumping for reducing fuel consumption?
The irony could be served in all the best restaurants.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
A Bush aide stumping for reducing fuel consumption?
The irony could be served in all the best restaurants.
[/QUOTE]
Mankiw is not a Bush crony now, nor was he when he worked for the administration. Hence his untimely departure.