Up for four hour 0 comments. Heres one!!!
This DNC Blog has seen better days. Sad really Like Hillary do you beleive in redemption?
She said so for Her most hated rival from the nineties in Philadelphia, not so much for Rev Wright. Redemption is a funny thing if you use it for personal reasons, however I digress, lets hope this blog finds redemption.
Obama was on "Meet the Press", admitting he voted for a 'gas tax holiday' in Illinois, and learned from his mistake. That is why he's says it doesn't work.
Posted by Seven of Six at May 4, 2008 11:12 AMI said a few days ago I thought it was a bad pander on Hillary's part but did remind people there was a difference in what Clinton was proposing versus what McSame proposed. Plus there's much more than just the gas tax holiday in her proposal here. That said, I also see how McSame set up both Clinton and Obama on this issue on taxes...yup they never want to cut taxes democrats. Now he has the sound bite going into the general election to use against Obama saying he's against a tax cut to help most americans. Hillary played politics here and outflanked him by saying yes to the temporary tax break, but only if it's paid for by big oil windfall profit tax. I think it was a smart political strategy on her part, it took away that soundbite and issue from McSame. I'm sure there'll be other stupid repub proposals from McSame here hoping Dems will go on the record that he can then use against them in the ge.
Posted by emal at May 4, 2008 11:59 AMKeewwwllll! Another e-post linking to the soon to be inconsequential blogs in Hillaryworld(tm). Who woulda thunk?
Here's a nice link to Hillary lying about NAFTA
Much like McKranky, Hillary doesn't understand you can't lie and get away with it anymore in a U-Tube world.
To think I once defended this person.
Live and learn
Posted by SnarkyShark at May 4, 2008 12:05 PMAxelrod's running a Sunday shift, I see. Sign of desperation?
Hey, OFB. Wyncha go over to MyDD and see which of your number doctored the "War Room" video to smear the Clintons before the primaries? Always nice to see that new kind of politics in action. Haw.
Thanks for the link, eRiposte. All the "best people" are going nuts on this. I'm with Krugman, though, since he's got a track record...
Posted by lambert strether at May 4, 2008 12:12 PMHey, OFB. Wyncha go over to MyDD and see which of your number doctored the "War Room" video to smear the Clintons before the primaries? Always nice to see that new kind of politics in action. Haw.
Sorry, that crap got recognized for the bait it was, and was retracted and denounced by anybody that matters.
Dead issue.
And it isn't new politics, its Rove politics.
My guess, which is just as good as slugg-o's lame hypothises, is that it was put out by Clinton people in a double fakee-air Rovian twist.
Sucks to b U
Posted by SnarkyShark at May 4, 2008 12:20 PM"Pander?"
"Pander?"
Are you kidding? When's the last time you filled up your car with gas?
Oh wait. I remember -- you must be the ones who're swooning over the high price of arugula.
Totally out of touch.
http://nobloodforhubris.blogspot.com/2008/04/let-them-eat-arugula-its-bitter-too.html
Posted by No Blood for Hubris at May 4, 2008 12:22 PMSpeaking of inconsequential blogs in Hillaryworld(tm)
Posted by SnarkyShark at May 4, 2008 12:26 PMHillary Clinton has just started doing an Indiana town-hall meeting being broadcast on ABC, and George Stephanopoulos asked her a direct question:Could she name a single economist who agrees with her support for the gas tax holiday?
Hillary sidestepped the question, and tried to use the complete dearth of expert support for the idea to her advantage, pointing to it as proof that she's on the side of ordinary folks against "elite opinion" -- a phrase she used twice.
Shorter Hillary-"I'm agin those pointy headed intelecshules! Now less go drink some shots, yeehaw!"
It's Bush 2 in a pantsuit!
Posted by SnarkyShark at May 4, 2008 01:11 PMOn the doctored "War Room" video, SnarkyShark burbles:
Sorry, that crap got recognized for the bait it was...
Actually, I am one liberal who agrees with Hillary on this issue.
I am a private practice attorney who represents truckers. While Hillary's critics are correct about her plan not saving the average consumer with their gas costs, it will do quite a lot for small business owners like my clients; folks who own 1-5 trucks and employ under twenty people.
These folks are getting reamed by the price of gas. Not only that, the price of gas is a significant portion of their overhead. A gas tax holiday would provide them with immediate relief. And I can tell you first hand, when these folks can't pay their bills, I don't pay mine -- including the my two salaried workers as well independent contractors who sometimes do work for my law practice.
Posted by Frank L. Cocozzelli at May 4, 2008 02:17 PMYo Snarky-STFU...oh wait!
And it got retracted ONLY after it went viral, and hordes of Obama fans propagated it all over the Indianapolis Star right before the primary, among other places.
Point is it got retracted.
This doesn't remind you of a certain episode involving Dan Rather and the TANG?
Maybe thats because that object you are staring at is really your colon.
Point is, the bait wasn't taken, and some post on myDDHillary love is proof of exactly nothing.
Point is it's a dead issue despite your desperate flogging.
Posted by SnarkyShark at May 4, 2008 02:22 PMAn ordinary voter begged to differ, however. Stephanopoulos turned the mike over to a woman who said she supported Obama and said she makes less than $25,000 a year.
"I do feel pandered to when you talk about suspending the gas tax," the woman said, adding: "Call me crazy but I actually listen to economists because I think they know what they've studied."
damn those ordinary folks who actually look for information... damn them all....
sorry, the above was me...
Posted by anthony at May 4, 2008 03:13 PM"I do feel pandered to when you talk about suspending the gas tax," the woman said, adding: "Call me crazy but I actually listen to economists because I think they know what they've studied."
Elitist bitch! Tr8tor! Vile Mysogenist!
Look how well ignoring experts in their field has worked for us so far! Oh wait.
Posted by SnarkyShark at May 4, 2008 03:17 PMAnother metaphor to help think about this issue: poker.
McCain makes a proposal to appeal to the wc (compassionate conservative, I suppose): cancel the fed gas tax for a few months.
Hillary: I'll see you and raise you one: cancel the fed gas tax but tax the oil companies instead.
McCain: no no no that won't help.
Obama: no no no that won't help.
Well, I suppose that Hillary's suggestions that the windfall profits and the deregulation of the oil industry and the current speculation in oil commodities ought to be investigated by the, you know, oversight institutions like FEC and DoE and appropriate congressional committees, etc. doesn't cause anyone's knees to shake.
Heh.
Posted by idear at May 4, 2008 03:46 PMShorter Lambert: Hillary's shameless pandering on behalf of a bad idea shows that she cares. And educated people are evil. Except for those that support Hillary.
Must be hard work producing content that stupid.
Posted by Geek, Esq. at May 4, 2008 03:53 PMWhat I find most interesting about the discussions regarding the "gas tax holiday" is the related (Democrat) discussion regarding a "windfall profits tax" on the oil companies.
The oil companies realize (approx.) 0.08 cents for every gallon of gas sold at the pump. The Federal Government realizes in excess of 0.18 cents for every gallon of gas sold at the pump: why is 0.08 cents considered excessive by Leftists but 0.18 considered to be perfectly acceptable (if not too low).
Posted by Bagley at May 4, 2008 04:19 PMbagel boy lowering the level of discourse since 2006..still making up your "facts" as you go along bagel? maybe when you start answering the questions asked of you your idiot questions will be addressed...fascist blowhard..
Posted by headxray at May 4, 2008 04:36 PM"...still making up your 'facts' as you go along bagel?"
Ummm, headxray, there is this thing called Google. Try it, you may learn something....
....probably not.
P.S. Iceland is, in fact, the world's oldest democracy. Now, run along and play downstairs: do not forget your helmet!
Posted by Bagley at May 4, 2008 04:46 PMthats all you'll ever have bagel...petty insults, puke party talking points and misinformation, along with "facts" you dream up in pipe dreams...typical fascist, criminal, modus operandi....so you quit taking your meds again eh?
Posted by headxray at May 4, 2008 04:53 PMYawn....
Waht was that you posted headxray?
Posted by Bagley at May 4, 2008 04:59 PMGay Vet !!
I see it is X Ray identity night.
Do you kinda forget who you really are once in a while?
Posted by jj at May 4, 2008 05:05 PMface it bagel...you're simply a brain dead criminal party parrot....you'll never have an original idea in your pathetic life...a cock roach exhibits more intelligence and a greater grasp of ethics...do the planet a favor...crawl back under a rock..oh and yawn
Posted by headxray at May 4, 2008 05:06 PM"I see it is X Ray identity night."
I always wondered about that.
Posted by Bagley at May 4, 2008 05:07 PMFrank L. Cocozzelli, I agree that the truckers are having a miserable time with this and it's going to resonate throughout the economy since so much gets shipped by truck. The truckers are today's canary in the mine. It's just that the tax vacation doesn't solve it. What's going to happen is that people will be paying more for what they buy. There is going to have to be a readjustment of wealth downward (sorry Bagley) in order for the economy to function.
There is not going to be a tax holiday in Congress this year, there is not going to be an increase in taxes on oil companies while the Oil Party controls the White House. Things will fall apart until a Democrat takes over the mess.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 4, 2008 05:07 PMjackoff jj..there is room for another asshole under bagel boys rock..why not join him for something that you both can benefit from? a circle jerk.....
Posted by headxray at May 4, 2008 05:09 PMHeadxray,
"cock roach"....
...is one word (cockroach).
Bob In Pacifica,
"There is going to have to be a readjustment of wealth downward (sorry Bagley) in order for the economy to function."
With respect to your argument, "wealth" is not operating capital. What you are addressing is "cash flow" and it is not adjusted "downward" it is distributed across competing companies in the same market segment. This competiton then bleeds over into related industries...and so on.
The economy is flexible, not a fixed zero-sum game where one entity must lose for another entity to gain.
Posted by Bagley at May 4, 2008 05:20 PMLet's again talk about reality.
Clinton (and McCain) are obviously pandering. Clinton knows as Stephanopolus (in CYA mode) suggested that there is NO academic economist support for a temporary waiver of excise taxes.
It is also true that our last experiment with 'windfall' profit tax of oil company profits (Carter, 1980) was a bureaucratic disaster.
Who is more likely to deliver long-term solutions to oil dependency and our environmental nightmare?
hey bags...please try not to wet the bed you and jj share....
Posted by headxray at May 4, 2008 05:39 PMYawn...
Posted by Bagley at May 4, 2008 05:44 PMWithout an adoring audience, Obama is Michael Dukakis. He was awful today on Meet the Press, despite Russert teeing things up for on him ("That's pandering, right Senator?"--referencing Hillary's gas tax proposal.)
I still don't know why Obama wants to be president.
Posted by cygnus at May 4, 2008 05:47 PMYawn...
Posted by Bagley at May 4, 2008 05:44 PM
pretty well sums up your level of consciousness asswipe...
BTW eriposte,
I imagine if most folks wanted to read the "shrill" Corrente, post-Bowers 'myDD', or TalkLeft (aka home of the 'small tent' Democrats), they could find their way ...
Posted by tfitznc at May 4, 2008 06:08 PMas I said a few days ago, the McCain/Clinton ticket has hit a dead end with the stupid Gas Tax Holiday. The only question still remains...which one of them will Flip Flop first.
Posted by T2 at May 4, 2008 06:25 PMFirst. In response to Bagley about the .08 cent profit. I'm a cost accountant. When the raw product, in this case crude oil, gives an oil company, like Standard Oil, huge profits, I don't need to look at any other detail. The money is being made on the crude oil, not the gas. To put it in another context. If a producer of milk, makes zillions of dollars by pricing the milk at 10 dollars a quart, and then prices the butter to make 1 cent per 10 pounds, its obvious what the story is. I understand that the commodity is priced worldwide too. However to deny that the biggest producers, like Standard and Shell and BP don't have a hand on the price of crude oil, is to sink the head in the sand.
Second. I drive a mile to get cheaper gas. The extra mile does not erase the savings. I don't know of anyone who will not go out of their way, as long as the mileage does not eat into the savings, to buy gas for 10 cents less per gallon. I've been doing that since forever. Even if the savings are for only once month, I'd do it. Why would anyone say that people don't benefit from a drop of 18 cents per gallon in gas prices if the revenue is made up from the huge profits the oil companies make? I don't care if the holiday is for 10 days, I'll take it.
Posted by Prabhata at May 4, 2008 08:27 PMStanding strong against the gas tax holiday, makes Obama look like what he is -a stiff, out of touch, elitist loser.
John Kerry with a suntan.
The pundits and upper class call it pandering, the Democratic base calls it relief.
Posted by SweetSue at May 4, 2008 08:39 PMBtw, the narrative that the gas holiday doesn't solve the problem, everyone agrees it doesn't. Neither does putting pressure on a wound solve the problem. But most would agree that until a permanent solution is implemented by the new president, the Democrats could do what McCain advocated and send the little problem to Bush. The voters will decide.
Posted by Prabhata at May 4, 2008 08:39 PMEriposte,
Again I appreciate your response to my criticisms on Hillary's gas tax proposals. I'm glad you concede that Hillary isn't above pandering, which unfortunately occurs with all candidates, even the ones we stand behind at times. I agree that there was a misrepresentation by Obama's camp, however her ideas behind this gas tax are still not very well thought out in the long run, since it will only very likely put more money back into the oil companies (suppliers):
Len Burman, of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, says eliminating the federal tax won't actually lower the price of gas because "supply constraints will push pump prices near their pre-holiday levels." He goes on to warn that "If that didn't happen, there would be shortages." The libertarian Cato Institute's Jerry Taylor agrees that a short-term gas tax holiday will have "little impact on pump prices."
For all the legislative prowess of McCain and Clinton, we're doubtful that either candidate can rewrite the laws of supply and demand. That 18.4 cents per gallon won't go to consumers. Instead, the proposal will simply shift that money from government coffers to the oil companies. We're willing to grant that if the laws of economics themselves took a holiday and the price did drop that much, the amount saved might be meaningful to many motorists, particularly those who are low-income and those who drive a lot. And there would likely be all kinds of ancillary benefits involving price reductions for food and other products that have to be transported, as well as airline tickets and the like.
But we can't find any economists who think we'll actually see that drop in the price of gasoline. Others have tried and failed as well. And the Clinton campaign hasn't produced one, either.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/135323/page/1
And as for covering that lost revenue with the windfall tax against oil companies:
Problem: If, as we outlined above, the price of a gallon of gas stays roughly the same despite the "holiday," then what used to be 18.4 cents that would go to the federal government for every gallon sold instead goes into the coffers of the oil companies as profit. That would be the profit that Clinton is proposing to tax to recover the cost of the gas tax holiday.
And as they quote one of your boys, Paul Krugman who states her plan is "pointless." That's not very helpful at all.
Furthermore, I'd also like to point out what Hillary responded to Obama's ad that criticized her gas tax plan. Specifically, her camp stated the following:
Sen. Obama has a new ad which claims that "experts" believe Hillary’s plan for a gas tax holiday would "boost oil industry profits." Their citation is an April 28 column by Paul Krugman, which discusses Sen. McCain’s plan, not Hillary’s plan:
The impression that Mr. McCain’s tax talk is all about pandering is reinforced by his proposal for a summer gas tax holiday — a measure that would, in fact, do little to help consumers, although it would boost oil industry profits.
http://thepage.time.com/clinton-response-to-obama-ad-2/
Now, aside of the fact that Hillary differentiates herself from McCain's plan via the windfall profit tax, something is a bit disturbing in that response. Hillary's camp outright admits that McCain's gas tax proposal would "do little to help consumers."
You see a slight problem here? She just admitted that the gas tax proposal that she and McCain share (outside of how to pay for the lost revenues) will "do little to help consumers." So, umm, is there any other viable reason outside of pure pandering as to why she's proposing this then?
I know you stated that she is not likely above pandering, but even you have to admit this one is pretty easy to see a mile away.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 4, 2008 09:59 PMThe three month gas tax holiday is not only earth-shaking, it's earth-shattering! OMG!!1
Unless, of course, Senator Obama decides to waffle , oops, change his mind and support it. Then it will be visionary!!1 A brilliant political move!! All the expert economists in this very model of a modern American thriving economy will sing his praises.
Well, it's all moot now anyway, I guess. Nancy says it's off the table. Let them eat cake (if they can get it). And let McCain appear to be a sympathetic, populist figure who gives a damn about the people. No, no, instead, let's talk about the long term plan with nose firmly planted in the stratosphere. Let's focus solely on how you can put solar panels on the roof of your home in five years (if you even have a home by then). That will win them over.
The idea of having short, medium and long term goals is overrated. The idea of countering a Republican opponent's disingenous and fiscally irresponsible political moves is *so yesterday*. The idea of saying "let the oil companies pay the gas tax this summer from their obscene profits" is so gauche, even if it does stick the badge of fiscal irresponsibility right smack on McCain's navy blue blazer.
We're all so post-political now.
Yes, yes. That's it. I'm catching on now.
And we're about to be post-LostAnotherElection too.
Prabhata, there is only a promise of a drop of 18 cents in taxes, not in prices. That's part of the fallacy of the gas tax holidays. In neither McCain's nor Clinton's proposal is that an absolute guarantee of what the gasoline will cost the consumer after the holiday starts.
For ex, if the gasoline tax takes a holiday on July 1 and the gas station drops its price on July 8, it's gotten that extra 18 cents for a week. Or if gas prices go down only 8 cents, they're still getting an extra dime.
And if Clinton's plan is going to take money away from oil companies through other taxes why shouldn't the oil companies raise their prices accordingly? In the case of the Clinton plan, there won't be any new tax passed on oil companies while Bush is in the White House. Therefore, the only thing that the gas tax guarantees is that oil companies won't be charged those 18 cents for that particular tax. By the way, it's all irrelevant because no tax holiday is going to get passed.
bagley, when the costs of selling goods cancels out any profitability for the small businessman (we were discussing truckers upthread) or worker, people naturally do one of two things: They raise their prices to absorb the costs or they go out of business. Sorry if you couldn't wrap your lobes around that. Not to get all socialist on you but the top tenth of one percent of Americans have more wealth than the bottom fifty percent of the country. The top tenth of one percent can only buy so many houses, refrigerators, cars, groceries. If everyone else is sitting home (or under a bridge) expect the economy to do what it's doing.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 5, 2008 06:36 AMAnd we're about to be post-LostAnotherElection too.
Thanks for doing your part! Does McCranky pay you flat rate or by the word?
Posted by SnarkyShark at May 5, 2008 07:30 AMMore Hillarity regarding the Pantsuit Pander Bear
Posted by SnarkyShark at May 5, 2008 08:07 AMExcerpts from teh above link
Here is President Clinton at a press conference in 2000 explaining that a gas tax holiday would not pass the savings to the consumer:
Q. Mr. President, in light of the fact that OPEC has decided to increase production, do you see it as a mistake for the Senate to proceed with a bill that would suspend the gas tax? And if it reached your desk, would you veto it?A. Well, I don’t expect it to reach my desk because there seems to be bipartisan opposition to it in the House, including among the leadership. But the problem I have with it, apart from what it might do to the Highway Trust Fund and the spending obligations that have already been incurred by the acts of Congress, the budgets, is that I’m not sure that the savings would be passed along to the consumers in addition to that. So I think there are a lot of questions about it. But I don’t expect it to pass.
Here is the Pander Bear herself debating Rick Lazio in 2000
And one of my fundamental disagreements during this campaign with my opponent was when he called for the repeal of the gas tax. Now, the gas tax is one of those few taxes that New York actually gets more money from Washington than we send. And we are totally reliant on it to do things like finishing I-86 in the Southern Tier, or the fast- ferry harbor works up in Rochester, as well as the work we need to do here in the city.
But I'm sure some kind soul will come in here and call me names, because attacking the messenger is Rove 101.
And we all know who is using the Rove play-book at this point.
Chris Bowers and some other members of the creative class over at Open Left claim that Hillary's gas tax holiday is "an attack on the left." Talk about jumping the shark.
Posted by Alvord at May 5, 2008 08:45 AMShorter eriposte: Obama does it too! Obama does it too!
Posted by Anonny at May 5, 2008 09:49 AMSnarkyShark,
The post by "Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying" (that you linked to) is grossly misleading just like some of the false attacks on HRC's proposal.
First of all, HRC's statement that economists are not always right is a perfectly reasonable statement. In fact, some of the liberal critics of NAFTA argued back in the 1990s that economists who advocated for it were wrong. You can also read Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz's book "The Roaring Nineties" where he talks about other misjudgements by economists on the "free trade" bandwagon.
Second, the issue with the gas tax holiday is NOT that it will have no benefit at all for consumers - the issue is that it is not clear that the benefits will roll down as desired to consumers. It is possible that some consumers may benefit and it is also possible that some may not. This is in fact pretty consistent with President Clinton's statement in 2000.
Third, President Clinton's reticence with a gas tax suspension had a lot more to do with the reduction of income to the Highway Trust Fund. He was against a suspension of the gas tax. Sen. Clinton is not arguing for a suspension of the gas tax but that oil companies will pay the tax for 3 months rather than consumers. Sen. Clinton's proposal does not in any way reduce the Trust Fund income - unlike McCain's proposal. That's why her proposal is not "evil".
Fourth, the comparison to Lazio in 2000 is another flat out lie because Sen. Clinton is not advocating a repeal of the gas tax at all. In fact, she is asking that oil companies pay the tax for 3 months rather than consumers. So, there is nothing remotely inconsistent between her past position on this and her current position.
Bottom line: many of her critics are either grossly misleading the public or flat out lying about her position. That is what is feeding the fever swamps more than her actual proposal which at worst is harmless to consumers and at best may actually help some people.
Finally, there is nothing "conservative" about forcing big corporations to pay some portion of taxes that low income Americans no longer have to pay. This is a very liberal policy position and anyone who claims this is "conservative" is either ignorant or a fraud. McCain's position is in fact the "conservative" one in that he is blowing up the deficit by temporarily suspending the gas tax.
Posted by eriposte at May 5, 2008 06:00 PMAnd yet, Eriposte seemingly jumps right over the crux of my argument on Hillary's pandering gas tax plan:
Len Burman, of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, says eliminating the federal tax won't actually lower the price of gas because "supply constraints will push pump prices near their pre-holiday levels." He goes on to warn that "If that didn't happen, there would be shortages." The libertarian Cato Institute's Jerry Taylor agrees that a short-term gas tax holiday will have "little impact on pump prices."
For all the legislative prowess of McCain and Clinton, we're doubtful that either candidate can rewrite the laws of supply and demand. That 18.4 cents per gallon won't go to consumers. Instead, the proposal will simply shift that money from government coffers to the oil companies. We're willing to grant that if the laws of economics themselves took a holiday and the price did drop that much, the amount saved might be meaningful to many motorists, particularly those who are low-income and those who drive a lot. And there would likely be all kinds of ancillary benefits involving price reductions for food and other products that have to be transported, as well as airline tickets and the like.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/135323/page/1
"Pointless" indeed, Mr. Krugman.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 6, 2008 03:05 PM