So reducing gas taxes is a bad idea, but $1000 tax cut for the middle class is a good idea. Because cutting gas taxes is a short term fix, but a different, larger and less progressive tax cut is a long term fix for the problems with the economy, which are mostly due to higher energy costs and an excessive deficit. Uh-huh.
First he talks about pandering and easy fixes, and then goes on to talk about oil company price gouging without missing a beat.
Whadda maroon.
Regards,
Shodan
His point that real solutions are not often sought and a desire to give the appearance of doing something is all too often all we get. I think that message is fairly clear to a majority of Americans.
The comment about going after the oil companies bothered me slightly. I would have said something a little less like I had all the villagers with torches and pitchforks behind me.
Although, oil is not much different that the drug cartels there’s so much money it’s nearly impossible to control and we need to do a better job in keeping them from making up the rules.
Oh for heavens sake. Well, I suppose there really was never any chance I’d vote for Obama in the long run anyway. I guess there is never going to be a candidate from either of the major parties who isn’t a pandering idiot. 
Sheesh…the old ‘We need to go after the price gouging oil companies!’ schtick. Lets get those EEEEVVVVIIIIILLLL Capitalists!!
Yeah, that’s going to work. I’m sure if Obama becomes Prez he will stick it to Big Oil™ and gas will go back to being a dollar a gallon…just like it is in Europe! Now THAT is forward thinking…
Yeah. Obama-mania continues to run unabated…
-XT
I saw that on the news last night. I laughed and told her that this was the sanest thing I’ve ever heard him say about the economy (granted I don’t really watch the news). He’s going to piss off a whole lot of farmers. I wonder why he had to get all crazy about calling for the gas tax thing. Farm subsidies are almost as windfall taxes, though not nearly as repulsive as claims of price gouging.
Have you read Obama’s stated energy plan if he becomes president?
A doubling of current renewable energy research and funding.
Increased fuel economy standards (with a message directly to Detroit that he will no longer accept excuses but will help them with retooling for more energy efficient cars if necessary). He has already put forward in Congress revised CAFE standards that the New York Times said, “…commands some bipartisan support, and unlike Mr. Bush’s approach, it promises real as opposed to hypothetical results.” (cite).
Grants for early adopters of energy efficient standards (buildings, mass transit, and so on as I understand it).
There is more on clean technologies and so on but those apply to oil most directly. I agree his stance on biofuel may need some revision but I actually think he, of all the politicians on offer, is the most likely to revise his stand based on closer inspection of the concerns surrounding it.
Does he pander some? Sure…it’s part and parcel of politics but at least his pandering seems based on rationales that make sense rather than feel-good policies that actually fix nothing.
Are all of his ideas great? Again no. Certainly no idea anyone has will gain universal approval. Someone always gets pissed off whatever the proposal. Yet again I think he will base his decisions more on a thoughtful assessment of the issues rather than which lobbyist will butter him up the most.
So you think the gas tax summer hiatus is a good thing, then? Explain.
Eh. More government waste/pork.
Yeah, because we can’t choose ourselves to buy more efficient cars-- we have to have the government force us to. Actually, the higher gas prices are what will finally force us to do that.
When the next POTUS gets into the white house they will have to revise thinking on biofuels, auto emissions the list goes on and on. In the next decade the US will HAVE TO do something about emissions and cutting carbon it won’t matter if Daffy Duck is in the oval office. Obama - IMHO - would be the best candidate to champion this. I’m so sick of this back and forth - and we can only look forward to more and more shit slinging on everything from what color underwear the candidates where to who will put a billion dollars towards cold fusion technology.
Along this same line of thinking then, I take it you believe the government should be able to tell people on welfare they can’t have any more kids because, hey, we’re paying them and they don’t contribute anything to the tax base, right? Now that I agree with!
What about going after the subsidized corn farmers who are making oodles on a commodity we need? A comodity whose price has dramatically increased.
And you brought up water. Should companies be able to charge $1.50 for a 20 ounce bottle of water?
Should private drug companies be allowed to sell their products at a price they seem fit? We need those medicines.
Just because we need something does not justify destroying the free market.
BTW, take away the oil companies tax breaks and see how much gas is then.
Actually yes, I have. And the more I read the more turned off to Obama I became. At one point I was seriously considering voting for the man…but doing more research has pretty much shut down any chance of that at this point. So…I guess it’s back to throwing my vote away on a third party. C’est la vie.
Exactly.
-XT
The problem here it is not merely a question of what you, personally, are willing to drive. Oil dependence keeps us uncomfortably at the whim of other countries. Particularly other countries that do not like us. Further are concerns about carbon emissions and the environment. While it may be your choice to drive a Ford Expedition why should I have to suffer for your choice?
As ever the balancing act between your rights and my rights is delicate and open to much debate but to say it should all be solved merely as an individual choice misses many of the complexities.
Maybe. I think all 3 candidates understand that something has to be done. Still, it’s going to be Congress that determines exactly what that is. The prez can try and take a leadership role, but ultimately all he can do is veto legislation he doesn’t like.
This is true, but it means that whoever the POTUS is they will play some role in the greening of America. I hope.
If you drive your 30 mpg car twice as much as someone drives his 15 mpg Expedition, you’re polluting just as much. Obama said in an interview the other day that one thing he learned from Republicans was the power of the market to affect change, and that the government should set goals and let people and the market decide how to meet those goals. If your goal is to cut gas consumption, then tax it to make it more expensive.
Anyway, I guess what the OP likes about Obama is that he makes nice, flashy commercials. I’m unimpressed.
Perhaps it needs a separate thread but I would be curious to know which of his policy proposals turned you off so thoroughly and which of his opponents comparable policy stances you found more to your liking. Particularly since Obama and Clinton are not at all that great a variance from each other (which would leave you defending McCain’s policies which should be interesting).
Well, I don’t want to hijack the thread so I’ll just say again that NONE of their stances appeal to me to be honest. I knew that there were vast differences between myself and Obama, but I originally felt that Obama would essentially moderate his stances if he were elected…basically run to the center a la (Bill) Clinton. But now I’m not so sure he will in fact do that…in fact I’ve become increasingly concerned that he won’t do that at all.
FWIW he appeals to me more than either Clinton or McCain do…though that’s not really worth enough to actually get my vote. As with Bush I’ll simply have to grit my teeth through an Obama presidency and hope for the best.
-XT
I will. But I don’t credit him on much else. As Obama becomes more substantive, McCain becomes more ephemeral.
But yeah, if McCain becomes president, I really hope he’ll do his best cut down all these subsidies. However, whether it’s cutting down on farm subsidies or oil subsidies, it has to go through Congress. If Obama becomes president, I really wonder how much he’ll actually be able to change things. It seems, though, that he’ll give it an honest try.
McCain–the pseudo-maverick–on the other hand, well, who knows what he’ll do?
I agree. And besides, CAFE standards do not prohibit the building of a Ford Expedition either. Via taxes you make choosing the Expedition less attractive but if you want it then fine.
I agree that they all pander on certain things - but you say that McCain has taken a principled stand on farm subsidies. Can you back that up with any McCain votes? I see he didn’t voteon a measure to limit subsidies (an amendment to the food and energy security act of 2007) and failed to vote on the overall food and energy security act of 2007. So you can’t really gather any information about his stance on the most recent related legislation that’s been through congress.
Obama’s actually cosponsored and helped pass a bill that limited subsidies.
Perhaps you could explain to an Obama supporter such as myself what exactly you would need to grit your teeth about?