home

Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:03:34 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Your turn. This is an Open Thread. BTW, in an object lesson in "be careful who the Netroots backs . . ."

Netroots Darling Travis Childers runs away from Barack Obama:

h/t Taylor Marsh

< SUSA KY Poll: Clinton By 36 | Michigan Dems Propose Delegate Solution >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Open Thread | 184 comments (184 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Paul Krugman calls out McCain and Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:05:02 PM EST
    on the gas tax:
    Why doesn't cutting the gas tax this summer make sense? It's Econ 101 tax incidence theory: if the supply of a good is more or less unresponsive to the price, the price to consumers will always rise until the quantity demanded falls to match the quantity supplied. Cut taxes, and all that happens is that the pretax price rises by the same amount. The McCain gas tax plan is a giveaway to oil companies, disguised as a gift to consumers.

    Is the supply of gasoline really fixed? For this coming summer, it is. Refineries normally run flat out in the summer, the season of peak driving. Any elasticity in the supply comes earlier in the year, when refiners decide how much to put in inventories. The McCain/Clinton gas tax proposal comes too late for that. So it's Econ 101: the tax cut really goes to the oil companies.

    The Clinton twist is that she proposes paying for the revenue loss with an excess profits tax on oil companies. In one pocket, out the other. So it's pointless, not evil. But it is pointless, and disappointing.
    Heh. (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:07:38 PM EST
    "Pointless, not evil."

    I'll take it.

    Legitimate criticism of a candidate from a principled guy like Krugman is always welcome.

    [ Parent ]

    I was shocked she would say something so dumb (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by dotcommodity on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:20:20 PM EST
    I love her energy plan, and this would have been a chance to suggest something smart from it but this is crazy.

    And a nickel of that 18 cent gas tax was the Bill Clinton 5 cent gas tax that we've had for 15 years holding up bridges and freeways around the nation and should not be removed, period.

    I guess even the better candidate panders sometimes.
    She's getting an earfull from me!

    [ Parent ]

    bridges and freeways (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:27:16 PM EST
    "she proposes paying for the revenue loss with an excess profits tax on oil companies"

    sorry but we are starting to sound a bit like the old mortgage discussion at Americablog to me here.

    [ Parent ]

    She does pander (none / 0) (#40)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:24:52 PM EST
    when she perceives it can do no harm.

    You may be right that it will unintentionally harm people. I'm not teh greatest at teh economomics.

    [ Parent ]

    Someone figured 12 wks' saving would be $25 (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:37:08 PM EST
    if person bought 20 gallons a week.  (I didn't redo the math.) No even half a tank full. Negligible amount, to the commenter.

    However, for someone on the edge financially, that might mean 6-10 gallons of milk, depending on the sale price.

    Some people do have to trade a gallon of milk for a gallon of gas.

    That's tough.

    With prices going up so fast, the shock is much worse than when it goes up slowly.  It is a palliative, a transition to higher all the time prices. I realize it makes littel difference to most people, but, to some? It's milk for their kids.

    What will we do? Tax credits for the poor? How will low earners get to work?

    Couple years ago, prices spiked up and I was getting gas.  I asked the attendant if people were upset, and he said not much, but that he had had to quit his 3rd job--which was in PA, about 50 miles away--bcz he wasn't earning enough to cover the cost of gas. So he was down to two part-time jobs.

     

    [ Parent ]

    $25 would almost fill up my car. (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by vicsan on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:03:43 PM EST
    I drive a Prius and my last fill-up was $29 with 4 gallons left in the tank. I'd take the $25. That could buy lotsa loaves of bread or boxes of mac & cheese too!

    [ Parent ]
    I really wanted a Prius--when I was looking (none / 0) (#123)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:10:12 PM EST
    dealers were commanding $2-6K over list price.

    I just couldn't swing one.

    When did you get yours and how's it working? Someone at another blog had the battery (iirc, haven't followed up) fail just out of warranty. That kinda scared me as person said it was really pricy.

    [ Parent ]

    Motor scooters! (none / 0) (#157)
    by magisterludi on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:41:02 PM EST
    80 miles to the gallon. We have two. One for the 30 min commute (the Stella can keep up in faster traffic) and one for neighborhood jaunts ( Honda Metro). Insurance is cheaper, too.

    [ Parent ]
    I bought it 2 years ago. (none / 0) (#163)
    by vicsan on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:45:15 PM EST
    The battery is warranted for 80,000? or 100,000? miles. Can't remember which right now, but whichever it is, the car will be OLD before I hit 80,000 miles. I've had it for 2 years and have only 10,000 miles on it. I figure by the time I need a new battery, they will be more reasonable in price.:)

    I LOVE the Prius. It's the best decision I ever made to buy that car. I was ticked off when I put gas in my old car and it cost me $50.00 (2 years ago!) I decided then and there that I was buying a Prius. I knew gas prices wouldn't be going down. I can drive, on average, 4-6 weeks on a tank of gas.

    No one in my area had a Prius in stock. I called every dealer in Illinois until I lucked out in Rockford. Someone had ordered one and backed out on buying it. I put down a deposit on the phone and drove 4 hours North to pick it up...sight unseen. I've never regretted buying the car. It's not my favorite color (blue), but it's a Prius and I love it. It's a great car.

    [ Parent ]

    Whoohoo! Many happy miles to you! (none / 0) (#178)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:38:51 PM EST
    Nice to hear someone really happy with a product.

    [ Parent ]
    Truckers who (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Andy08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:11:07 PM EST
    deliver your groceries need a fortune (I read about 1200) to fill up. The difference is not $25 bucks. That increase is being paid by us at the supermarket. Grocery prices have gone up quite a bit in the northeast.

    (by the way the $25 bucks was Obama's laughing line in NC yesterday -- not sure what was he laughing about though)

    [ Parent ]

    The Kyl-McCain Amendment (none / 0) (#148)
    by eleanora on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:26:39 PM EST
    has already been written and is being attached to HR 1195.

    "U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today called on Senate colleagues to join him in supporting the Kyl-McCain amendment to H.R. 1195, the Highway Technical Corrections Bill. The Gas Tax Holiday Amendment would suspend the 18.4 cents per gallon Federal gas tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day 2008.

    The attached letters were delivered to Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL) earlier today."

    No way the Republicans don't get this passed in an election year. How many Democrats would even vote against it?  I disagree with her quite often, but I think she's smart to refuse to cede this territory to McCain and try to change the conversation. Hillary is the accepting political reality of a one summer suspension and trying to get people to talk about how we pay for it and how we change what we're doing long-term to end our dependency on gas and oil.

    [ Parent ]

    At least it shows (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:23:38 PM EST
    that Krugman isn't in the tank for Hillary (which is what The Blog That Cannot Be Named says now, after worshipping Krugman for years).

    [ Parent ]
    Krugman (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:15:55 PM EST
    is right on this one.  It's pandering.

    [ Parent ]
    Totally (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by BDB on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:25:34 PM EST
    I disagree with her on this one.  

    Although that's easy for me to say since I'm one of the urban elite who isn't getting crushed by the rise in gas prices.  If I were a family farmer or a salesman in Montana, I'd probably welcome any relief I could get.

    [ Parent ]

    We gotta eat in the cities, too (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:37:17 PM EST
    where food already is pricier -- and the soaring gas prices are sending food prices soaring here, too.

    I walk to work, and I could lose a few more pounds.:-)  But my students, many of them with families, are suffering from the food costs.  

    And a lot of them look to summer jobs in my state's number-one industry, tourism -- and I'm hearing that those jobs are fewer this year, too, because of the industry's expectation of the hit it will take from the hikes in gas prices.

    I wish everyone would move, as I did, to walk to work (and much else; I so love city life for that!).  But they won't, and they're suffering, and so are their children, so I understand a short-term relief program for them.  I want them to be able to come up with tuition -- and fuel money -- to come back in fall and finish school and get better jobs to pay more taxes, too!

    [ Parent ]

    Food is really going up (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:42:07 PM EST
    I eat out a lot, and I've noticed that everything is higher.

    Suppose the rice shortage will cause my sushi to go up?  :)

    (I confess.  I thought that immediately!)

    [ Parent ]

    Focus on Diesel (none / 0) (#139)
    by AlladinsLamp on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:23:51 PM EST
    I was in a local grocery store looking to buy a 10lb bag of potatoes ($4 at Piggly Wiggly, $5 everywhere else). The produce manager walked by and I asked him why something like potatoes would  spike in price - after all, there's no corn used in growing potatos.

    He said the store was having trouble getting deliveries as a lot of truckers were parking their rigs if they couldn't carry a full load.

    The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. The American Trucking Association says just a one-penny increase annualized for an entire year costs the trucking industry $391 million a year.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah and she's left me with egg on my (none / 0) (#124)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:10:23 PM EST
    face because I was telling a young voter who is partyless that McCain's gas tax was the perfect example of the Republican-style of governing - offering up appealing marketing "solutions" and trying to pass them off as meaningful strategies that will solve real problems.

    [ Parent ]
    I ususally agree with the K man (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:18:57 PM EST
    but I have to differ here.
    gas prices are starting to really hurt people.
    as in, they cant afford to drive to work.  if they can help that even a little they should.
    pandering or not.


    [ Parent ]
    Shielding people from reality... (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by sweetthings on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:24:13 PM EST
    never helps in the long run. Because eventually the shield fails, and with more catastrophic consequences than ever.

    Gas prices are starting to hurt people. The solution to this is getting people to use less gas, not trying to artificially lower the price.

    [ Parent ]

    That is not practical (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:26:54 PM EST
    given the state of public transportation in America, IMHO. Most people in the country cannot help but use gas, if only to get to work or the doctor's office or to go to the grocery store.

    The solution, I believe, is to wean people off gas by investing in alternative sources of energy, and to build up the public transportation system at the same time.

    [ Parent ]

    there are (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:28:28 PM EST
    long term solutions and short term solutions.
    we need both.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course. (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by sweetthings on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:37:27 PM EST
    But a short term solution that actively works against the long term solution is no solution at all.

    [ Parent ]
    ok, Throw in the heating oil (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:20:41 PM EST
    This winter it was over $1 more a gal. Last Jan, $1.999. This January, 3.299. Currently, $3.799. You know how many widows on SS who have to give up $550 a month of their SS check to stay warm. The solution can't be to move.

    BTW, gas is still the cheapest form of car energy at this point. And the less you use, the higher it goes up. That is why it is so expensive in Europe. Ours is actually kept down because we use more of it. The big thing here is that we need to go after the traders on Wall street who are driving these profits for greed. And if oil companies built more refineries, the price would be down. And if traders did not buy oil for here and sell it to another country before it even docks here and take a huge profit, maybe we would have more here. The lower dollar is not helping us either.

    At the same time, I love living in the country. And I fill my gas tank up when it says half. About every 3 weeks. So any help including the less tax is always appreciated.  

    [ Parent ]

    if you are a single (none / 0) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:40:58 PM EST
    mother with several kids to feed who is barely making ends meet already this argument is not that persuasive.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course not. (none / 0) (#92)
    by sweetthings on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:48:22 PM EST
    That doesn't make it wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    Y'all are talking past each other (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by spit on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:32:11 PM EST
    of course we need to change the situation in terms of demand for gasoline.

    Here's the thing, though -- and I've got no strong opinion on the particulars of the gas tax at the consumer level vs. taxing the oil companies, I'm more focused on the base of the thing for real people.

    Right now, what we're doing is making the working poor and lower middle class bear the absolute worst of the brunt of our eventual and necessary transition away from fossil fuels.

    People can't afford to go buy a new car with better gas mileage. They can't afford to move closer in to the urban area. They can carpool, maybe, assuming that they can find nearby neighbors who are going the same direction -- some places, that's feasible, and some places it isn't.

    There are a lot of upfront costs to even just conserving. On the individual level, most people toward the bottom are just barely scraping by as it is, they haven't got the cash to make those sacrifices. It's the difference between food and no food. On a larger scale, it's affecting everything we buy and eat -- oil and petroleum based products are a major input in agriculture, and moving goods around is similarly a massive expense.  

    Frankly, it would be easy for me to shrug that off -- my car isn't great for mileage, but I hardly drive it, because live in an urban area and ride my bike or take mass transit for the vast majority of my daily transit, and I fill up around once a month. But I think we're also really short sighted when we ask the working class to sacrifice their basic (and barely okay) standard of living because we're allowing the "market" to do its work. Yes, prices are going to rise, and we need to stop relying so much on oil -- but we also need IMO to be very careful to shield the most financially vulnerable from absolute collapse while we build the infrastructure we're going to need to get there.

    I'd rather not fiddle with the basic price to get there, I guess, but this constant blog refrain of "well, the price needs to rise and will drive down demand!" also strikes me as a very, very poor way to look at it. People will forgo a lot of things before they forgo gasoline, and that gets crippling at some point to both individuals and our economic picture.

    [ Parent ]

    thats your opinion (none / 0) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:50:34 PM EST
    not mine

    [ Parent ]
    I didn't say use NO gas. (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by sweetthings on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:34:34 PM EST
    I said use less gas. Maybe that means driving a smaller car. Maybe it means carpooling. Maybe it means trying to group your errands together. The details will vary from case to case and individual to individual.

    But there's only one way to make sure people use less gas, and that's to raise the price. People change their behaviors when those behaviors start impacting their wallets, and not before.

    [ Parent ]

    My girlfriend just got back from (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:34:56 PM EST
    Switzerland and Americans are so lazy and so far behind in car tech and getting away from so much fossil fuel I have no sympathy for us.

    [ Parent ]
    not to mention they have been (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:39:54 PM EST
    paying 5 bucks a gallon for years.
    but heres the thing.  yes people are lazy and stupid but this is the price structure they have built their lives around.
    5 bucks a gallon here (which is coming no doubt) would be a disaster for many people here.
    maybe they cant afford to buy a hybrid.

    [ Parent ]
    I think Americans are lazy (none / 0) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:50:31 PM EST
    NOT STUPID though.  I was a business major and accept and expect that when the market corrects the market corrects.  We have all known this was going to happen now for about two years if we cared to know.  I own only fuel efficient cars because I have cared.  I had time to do something about it and I did.  How others were spending their time though I cannot control.

    [ Parent ]
    look (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:54:04 PM EST
    there are many people in this country MANY people who are living right on the edge.  the numbers have gone way up in the last 8 years.
    you need to understand that these people cant afford to buy a fuel efficient car.  they probably have not bought a new car in years and the one they have was not new when they  bought it.
    they have to work every day because they dont get paid days off or health care.
    the gas break is for them NOT us.


    [ Parent ]
    not to mention the ranchers and farmers in (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:28:10 PM EST
    this country with their tractors etc...That food doesnt grow and harvest itself...

    [ Parent ]
    and (none / 0) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:57:00 PM EST
    as far as the price going up to make up the difference.
    thats a theory.  
    heres another.  if you put every economist in the world end to end they still would not reach a conclusion.
    I say try it.

    [ Parent ]
    I know there are people living on the edge (none / 0) (#116)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:02:57 PM EST
    I put myself through school with no help from anyone other than me.  I lost my mother when I was seven.  I was a single mother also for seven years and got no help from the father and had to do that all by myself too.  I know all about the edge as I have lived there myself.  Americans have the market they deserve and the problems that are coming with it though where gasoline comes in.  Most of the people on the edge are also driving those giant SUV's they couldn't wait to get into when getting credit required almost nothing.  Al Gore was being awarded for his Unconvenient Truth but most of America didn't care until situations started cramping their style.

    [ Parent ]
    How about people (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by standingup on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:31:52 PM EST
    who live in rural areas and can't really use less gas?  They carpool but there is no public transportation available to them.  Or what about farmers who have to put out crops and truckers that we rely on to transport our goods?  We need to work on conservation and alternatives but there are people who are honestly hurting with little ability to use less.  

    [ Parent ]
    how about truck drivers (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:41:57 PM EST
    who are already barely making it?

    [ Parent ]
    Some people can't.. (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:00:32 PM EST
    for instance, farmers. Yes, they can only use gas when they absolutely have to, but their work involves using gas and diesel. Lots of it. And the farms are usually far from town, so going to town once a week for groceries is an investment. One can  see them trading buying a gallon of milk to afford a gallon of gas to be able to go get the milk. I live ten miles from town. I only go in once a week, for horse feed, me food, and other things. I do the same thing I did in the '70's during the Carter administration, I combine all my errands into one trip. I used to not worry if I missed getting something because it was easy to bop into town and get it. I have a small car, Saturn, that gets 36 mpg. Now it costs me $2.04 round trip to the small town I live near, and twice that to get to and from the big town near me. Add in the gas it takes to get from store to store, the towns are spread out along a major highway, and the mpg goes down in town traffic. So add another dollar for store hopping. Now that is spent before you spend a nickel on anything else, like food. Figure that most people in the country drive trucks, the farm truck is also the family car on many farms. Then look at the bite it is going to take out of the budget. Oh, gas here is now $3.68 at the cheapest stations.

    [ Parent ]
    Off road fuel is not taxed. (none / 0) (#174)
    by wurman on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:37:28 PM EST
    Only highway fuel is "use" taxed.  Even the trucker's fuel to run their refrigeration is untaxed.

    The fuels are even died different colors to identify them at the pump.

    [ Parent ]

    The price is what is going up, not the tax (none / 0) (#176)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:48:15 PM EST
    so it doesn't matter if they pay taxes on it or not, the price is still going up as much for them as it is for us. Right?

    [ Parent ]
    Different point by me (none / 0) (#184)
    by wurman on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:54:59 AM EST
    My comment is that the Clinton & McCain & others notion of a Fed gas tax holiday doesn't affect off road fuel.  That group always pays the base market price without regard to the taxes.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (none / 0) (#79)
    by annabelly on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:40:03 PM EST
    with you sweetthings. I'm no economist, but from the standpoint of a cynical consumer, it seems to me that oil companies will just rise prices more, and then we'll add the gas tax back onto the elevated amount this fall. It'll be $5 a gallon come October.

    [ Parent ]
    well, one of her ideas is to subsidise (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by dotcommodity on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:25:22 PM EST
    electric vehicles and hybrids for $12,000 in her energy plan. This is the sort of idea she should roll out now.

    For temporarily, she should have stuck to "stop putting more in the Federal Reserve, start taking some out to reduce prices at pump." Theres way too much in the Reserve, and Cheney keeps adding more daily.

    Once you undo a tax, its hell to get it back. The better plan is to wean us off gasoline vehicles with financial help to switch.

    [ Parent ]

    Sales taxes are regressive (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Manuel on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:38:54 PM EST
    The gas tax only makes sense as a measure to encourage conservation.  This tax is now pointless unless we increase it significantly (and that isn't likely).  Some form of gas tax that actually rewards fuel efficiency would be better.

    [ Parent ]
    That's true (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:54:53 PM EST
    Paul says these ideas are dissappointing.

    Here's something else that's dissappointing.  The only way we can think of to get people to conserve is by hurting poor people.


    [ Parent ]

    But K's point was that the price will rise (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by lilybart on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:43:55 PM EST
    back to the market level anyway, so the tax reduction will erased. So there will not be any relief for more than a moment.

    She is pandering with this one. And how much profit is the excess and who decides that one?  And won't the price go up MORE if they need to offset the new tax loss?

    The market has to work on this one.
    The market is the only force that will makes us invest in alternative energy.

    [ Parent ]

    I guess you are fine (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:52:17 PM EST
    with removing government subsidies to oil companies, then?

    Oh, I forgot. It's only welfare if it extends to people, not corporations.

    [ Parent ]

    So you deflect, since you have no (none / 0) (#137)
    by lilybart on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:21:50 PM EST
    substance for a post about the counter-productive gas tax "holiday."

    I don't know how you took that turn in the road, but for the record, oil companies do not need subsidies or tax breaks and it doesn't follow that because I think this gas tax idea is pointless that I favor corporations. Anyway, the tax thing is a gov/taxpayer issue.

    I am not against some redirection of wealth in favor of the worker class but that is not what this gas tax issue is about.  

    [ Parent ]

    But Krugman is right. (none / 0) (#145)
    by alsace on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:25:12 PM EST
    Consumers won't see that 18 cents, it will go straight to the oil companies' bottom line.  Or is there a plan to repeal the Law of Supply and Demand along with the tax?

    [ Parent ]
    I'll take Krugman's (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by DaytonDem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:26:02 PM EST
    word on the economics of the gas tax holiday, but not the "pointless" part. The point is to gather votes and it's a winner. Try explaining macro economics to people who can't afford the gas for their vehicles. Whether this works or not voters can see the candidate trying. And I for one don't get terribly upset when politicians make political calculations during a campaign. Bottom line McCain can't you it against her.

    [ Parent ]
    The point was (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:29:46 PM EST
    to NOT discuss Wright.  :)

    Shoot, gotta talk about something!  But heavens, she had to stay away from that swampland.

    [ Parent ]

    Politics != Policy (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by Manuel on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:29:36 PM EST
    Krugman is correct on the policy (though I find sales taxes regressive but that's another story).  The politics of the situation is that some action on the part of the government, even if pointless, can be symbolic.  Couple tthat with the political message of taking on the oil companies and Hillary's plan makes political sense.

    [ Parent ]
    Sound politics should always have a basis (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:44:55 PM EST
    in sound policy.

    [ Parent ]
    That isn't always possible (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Manuel on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:04:32 PM EST
    Politics is messy and compromises are necessary.  In this case, Hillary recognizes that the Republicans are poised to use this issue to score political points so she is trying to neutralize it by tying in the idea of the windfall profits tax.

    This is leaving aside the idea of a sales tax as sound policy in the first place.


    [ Parent ]

    You are absolutely (none / 0) (#128)
    by Andy08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:12:06 PM EST
    correct Manuel. That is the point.

    [ Parent ]
    Seems Paul (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:37:21 PM EST
    Thinks it's a long term solution as well.

    Anyway.  A gas tax is still a regressive tax.

    No one's refuting that.  Not yet, anyway.

    But I do wonder.  About 8 years ago, states and federal government imposed taxes on cigarettes causing them to double in price.  Good idea if you ask me in the case of cigarettes, I don't know what benefit they have for society except transient coolness amongst popular icons of yesteryear.

    Anyway.

    If all what Paul is saying is true.  If what people have been telling me is true.

    Then it must follow that in the year that I saw a pack of camel lights go from 2.05 a pack to 3.75 a pack.  .....

    If a year if you hypothetically consider what would happen  if the taxes imposed were then removed...

    then Paul and Econ 101 would tell you the cigarette companies would then raise the price to 3.75 all by themselves because that would then be the real point at which supply meets demand.  If you follow.  Is that what Paul and Econ 101 would say would happen in that situation?

    Perhaps there's more to all of these equations.  Isn't there an Econ 201?

    If I removed all taxes on cigarettes right now, what happens to the price?


    [ Parent ]

    Look up "elasticity" (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by rilkefan on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:42:22 PM EST
    Look up smoking rates vs price too.

    [ Parent ]
    Right (none / 0) (#90)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:47:44 PM EST
    What's this about?

    Getting people to drive less?

    Really.  The question remains.

    The reason why this is deemed bad policy is simply because the second you remove the tax, the oil companies raise the price to the price with the tax anyway and just get more profits.

    Ok.  Would the same thing happen with any other product that is taxed at point of sale?

    It's a fair question.


    [ Parent ]

    fair question that's been answered (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by rilkefan on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:11:55 PM EST
    dozens of times here - there's a fine one in this threadlet.  You keep saying, "If I can squeeze oranges by hand, I should be able to squeeze apple juice by hand."  Someone says, "Here's why apples aren't like oranges in this regard."  You then say, "Bananas are fruit - let's squeeze banana juice by hand".  Some biologist is going to come along and explain why bananas are different from oranges, and you're going to head over to mangoes.  Go try to find a semi-reputable liberal economist who agrees with you and bone up on whatever her or his counterargument is to Paul Krugman, Certified American Hero, and report back.  Till then you're hurting your cause by annoying everyone here who has read anything at all about gas prices.

    [ Parent ]
    Cigarettes are different (none / 0) (#85)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:43:59 PM EST
    you know a place where I can buy bootleg, tax free, gas? You think indian reservations will start selling it?

    [ Parent ]
    It falls to 2.05 a pack. (none / 0) (#89)
    by sweetthings on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:46:09 PM EST
    Or whatever it was before the tax. If there is a surge in demand, prices may go up, briefly, but they will quickly trend back downwards as additional supply is brought to bear.

    So why would gasoline stay at the same price (or go even higher) if you removed the tax, while cigarette prices would fall? Supply.

    There is, I suppose, a finite limit on how many cigarettes the world can produce a day, but we're not operating anywhere near that limit. And even if we were, it would be a fairly trivial matter to plant a few more tobacco farms and build a few more cigarette rolling factories. Because there is ample supply, prices are going to hover at just a bit over the cost of production, even though there is healthy demand.

    This is not the case with oil and gasoline. Production facilities around the globe are operating at virtually maximum capacity, and people still want more. They want it so badly that they're willing to bid the price quite high. And unlike cigarettes, we cannot quickly or easily expand the supply. Refineries take many years and many tens of billions of dollars to build, and there is a finite limit on how fast we can get oil out of the ground....particularly since we're finding less and less of it as we go on.

    Additional demand + static supply = higher prices. Nothing the government can really do about that.

    [ Parent ]

    Funny thing though (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:50:13 PM EST
    Supply is also limitted because Oil companies know they can raise the price by witholding supply.

    Of course the situations are different.

    Interesting discussion though, eh?

    Are people addicted to gas?

    [ Parent ]

    Of course they are. (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by sweetthings on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:53:01 PM EST
    I have a 15 mile commute. I've sunk enormous amounts of time and money into my house. I also love my job, and need the money. Thus, I will shell out for gas until I absolutely cannot afford it any more. Only when I have no other choice will I change my lifestyle.

    I can't imagine I'm exceptional in that regard.

    [ Parent ]

    Semantics I guess (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:56:55 PM EST
    If I need to hang a picture I don't consider myself addicted to hammers and nails.


    [ Parent ]
    I gave you (and Krugman) a 5. (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by ghost2 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:38:30 PM EST
    Even though I am an admirer of Hillary Clinton.  

    Krugman is always honest.  

    [ Parent ]

    From the Macro POV (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:33:46 PM EST
    this may be negligible.  But for the summer, consider how many families cannot even make that 200 mile road trip because of the price of gasoline.  With kids out of school, ordinary families plan road trips together.  The price of gasoline certainly is a consideration.  With less local tourism, small businesses in places of interest will also suffer from the lack of traffic.  It may be a short term solution, but can make a big difference to many families.  It is no different than giving someone money for a cartoon of milk now, when it is greatly needed.  People who do not live in the very edges, cannot have an appreciation for little things like that.

    Just like the mortgage crisis.  If you are one or two payments away from being driven out of your home, you hope for anything at all that can forestall that sad day.

    Hillary knows and McCain also knows that suspending the gas tax is a short term solution.  But it keeps many people from suffering irreparable suffering while a more long term solution is arrived at.  

    [ Parent ]

    Why Krugman got this wrong (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:46:37 PM EST
    IF oil was a soda, he would be right because of his Econ 101. But this is oil. Yes it is mostly correct to say that the supply is fixed for oil but SO IS  demand.

    The price of oil keeps climbing and so called economist fail to understand why has the demand has not gone down (its Econ 101). The reason is that lot of oil demand is NOT flexible especially true for our economy. The economist who are trying to bring the demand down demand for oil by letting the prices go skyrocket are totally idiots.

    So Hillary is correct, that a temporary moratorium on gas tax would indeed provide a relief to the consumers who are already finding it difficult to meet both ends.

    If this is pandering according to Obama supporters, then this is no different than (gimmick) that the IRS issuing tax relief checks that we will be receiving shortly.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you really knocking off 18 cents a gallon... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:56:06 PM EST
    ...is going to drive up consumption, though?

    [ Parent ]
    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:06:40 PM EST
    was firm in his denunciation.  But the same statements were there originally and should have evoked that denunciation originally.

    So now we know that he will respond when pushed into a corner.

    Nevertheless, for the good of the country, I am pleased he finally set the record straight.

    Do you suppose some of the idiots who wrote about how Wright was right now are scrubbing egg off of their faces?

    Wright was right (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:08:35 PM EST
    about many things.
    that doesnt mean he should have said it in a political season.

    [ Parent ]
    If it's right in one season, then (none / 0) (#22)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:17:31 PM EST
    it's right in all seasons.

    In any case, we'll see if Obama's "at last" denunciation helps him.

    It will still be in the news for another 3 days, I predict.

    [ Parent ]

    well yes and no (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:22:44 PM EST
    I have said from the beginning that I agreed with many of the things he said but it was political suicide to say it.
    just because its right doesnt mean you have to bring it up in a primary season.  
    but I agree about the three days.  I think that is the low end.
    I think the wheels are coming off.

    [ Parent ]
    Tweety and Mrs. Greenspan (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:32:22 PM EST
    on "Softballs" have just agreed that Obama's remarks today successfully disassociated him from Rev. Wright, and the story will go away.  Rachel Maddow yelled at David Shuster and Joe Scarborough on "Race for the White House" for continuing to cover the Wright controversy, rather than letting it go away.

    Poor MSNBC.  They want this story to go away, but they can't help themselves about covering it.  So I guess the coverage will consist of "how soon will the Rev. Wright story go away?"

    I wonder why they can't just ignore the story completely, like they ignore McCain's latest foreign policy proposal -- to exclude Russia from the G8, and to create a "League of Democracies" that would exclude China -- in order to avoid calling it crazy?  Or like they ignore the story about their own outrageous conflict of interest in paying former generals to act as "analysts" even though they knew the "analysts" were taking marching orders from the Pentagon?

    I wonder why I continue to rant about this stuff?

    [ Parent ]

    It will go away when Rev Wright (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:39:20 PM EST
    stops talking.  But I do not know how long it will be before he reacts to these latest comments from Obama.  This almost seems like a nasty divorce proceeding for Wright and Obama being conducted in public.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, he hasn't said anything today (none / 0) (#158)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:41:08 PM EST
    But scary thought...he has a book coming out THIS FALL.

    Imagine the book tour during the thick of the GE campaign.

    [ Parent ]

    I hope so (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:55:57 PM EST
    Do you suppose some of the idiots who wrote about how Wright was right now are scrubbing egg off of their faces?

    Esp. some of the news analysts like Roland Martin (on CNN), who said, Clinton's are just trying to muddy Obama by twisting Wright's words.

    I guess, its JUST Words, when it comes to Obama or his anchors.

    [ Parent ]

    It is possible that Obama is human (none / 0) (#88)
    by lilybart on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:46:05 PM EST
    and has feelings and may not have wanted to end the relationship and maybe he hoped it would not come to this. Hence what people see as his delay.

    Wright went over the top at the Press Club. He ended the relationship himself.

    [ Parent ]

    You could be (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:51:51 PM EST
    right, but those words, "I could no more denounce...."

    ring in my head.  You can't ruin people's lifelong careers and expect them to take it without comment.

    He did it to Ferarro, and she let him have it with both barrels.

    Ditto for Wright.

    I personally think Obama is caught up in his own majestic movement a bit too much and has forgotten that other people are not puppets.

    [ Parent ]

    OK, I'm depressed. I feel like Hillary has a (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Teresa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:07:25 PM EST
    better chance than some think to win this thing and I felt this way before Sunday night. Now, Wright will get all the credit if she wins.

    I also think that in time, Obama could be a great President and I fear for his future. I'm not happy to see him suffer even if the media deserves it.

    It won't be because of Wright per se (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:09:39 PM EST
    We also have to consider Obama's ham-handed response over time.

    [ Parent ]
    there is a saying (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:09:48 PM EST
    that goes something like "you can get a lot done if you dont care who gets credit for it"
    as long as she wins I could care less.

    [ Parent ]
    You will always be depressed (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:10:17 PM EST
    if you expect the media to give HRC credit for anything good.

    May I suggest an expectation adjustment?

    [ Parent ]

    I have to take one of those every day (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:17:10 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    lol, true. I'm not depressed about her (none / 0) (#17)
    by Teresa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:16:32 PM EST
    coverage, though, I'm pi**ed. I'm kind of depressed for Obama. I'm just a bleeding heart and I know that he could have/should have prevented this, but I still feel bad. Maybe he will learn some lessons about how Hillary feels even though her treatment has been undeserved and uncalled for. His campaign contributed to her treatment so I don't feel bad for them, I just feel sad about this whole primary right now.

    But, the more I listen to my TV and the praise going on for how wonderful Obama was today, the more I forget that I feel sorry for him. :)

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (none / 0) (#155)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:35:58 PM EST
    As I noted above, Tweety and Mrs. Greenspan believe that "today was a wonderful day for Barack Obama."

    [ Parent ]
    Just (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:02:35 PM EST
    goes to show how out of touch they are. They thought that the Philly speech was "the greatest" ever and it didn't help him. Now, it seems said speech may even come back to bite him.

    Wright is stuck in the voters' minds. It's not going away no matter how many times they might say it will.

    [ Parent ]

    The Philly speech WAS a good speech (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:21:40 PM EST
    But it was only tangentially about Wright, which is why it left him vulnerable to Rev. Wright, Act II.

    [ Parent ]
    Unfortunately... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by sweetthings on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:11:30 PM EST
    It's now or never for both candidates. It always has been. And it's really too bad, since they both had promise.

    You play the hand you're dealt, though. At this point, I'm just hoping one of them survives. There's still a chance they might pull a Gingham Dog-Calico Cat number.

    [ Parent ]

    She will get the credit (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:12:00 PM EST
    for staying in and working hard in Ohio and PA to turn this thing around. there would be no alternative to Obama to fall back on if she had not.

    Don't be depressed - not about who gets the credit if she wins anyway!

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, she will, and she should (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:11:24 PM EST
    there would be no alternative to Obama to fall back on if she had not

    I hope the SDs are seeing that too. And realizing that the best person to implement the Democratic platform is the one who dug in and wouldn't quit. And the one with clear cut policies, complete with payment plans. America has had enough Big Daddies. We need Big Momma now. Someone who can clean up the mess, fix the budget, spank the bad guys(our bad guys!), and get us to the doctor when we need to go. I don't usually use sexist metaphors, but in this case, I think they are appropriate.

    [ Parent ]

    You're looking at this the wrong way. (5.00 / 8) (#20)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:16:58 PM EST
    You should look at it the Wright way!

    Seriously -- if Clinton were to eek out a win purely by coming back somewhat in the polls, getting Florida seated, and twisting superdelegate arms (that is, by politics) she'd have a tough time bringing back the Obama maniacs.

    But if Obama's campaign instead self-destructs based on the vindictive behavior of a black preacher who was supposed to be helping Obama, the sting of the loss would be somewhat mitigated.  Yes, there is always the lunatic fringe that will blame Clinton for inventing a time machine and putting those phrases into Wright's mouth, but for a lot of people Obama will simply have caught a bad break.

    For a while I've been hoping that one of the candidates would stumble badly enough on their own that we'd develop a clear winner by the end of primary voting season.  I was less concerned about which one blew it than with the desire to see one candidate win in such a way as to not alienate the other candidate's supporters.

    I'm not saying that's happened here -- for all I know Obama will still win, weakened, and in no shape to undertake the general election.  But if this is enough to do in his candidacy it does it in one of the better ways imaginable for the Democrat's chances in the fall.

    [ Parent ]

    That is the hopeful part. If his supporters (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Teresa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:27:46 PM EST
    see him losing because of Wright rather than Hillary beating him, maybe they'll come around a little easier. It's just that I personally believe she might catch him in the popular vote even without Wright and I'd like to see her get some credit for a change.

    I'm still positive that if she doesn't surpass him in the popular vote, the SD's will still give it to him, no matter what, though, even with Wright out there.

    [ Parent ]

    They'll blame Hillary for Wright (none / 0) (#134)
    by nellre on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:15:43 PM EST
    They'll blame Hillary for Wright
    Clinton supporter invited Wright

    [ Parent ]
    Update at the link says Hillary supporter (none / 0) (#143)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:24:26 PM EST
    pushed Wright two years ago--and Press Club thought he wasn't big enough of a news figure.

    Now he was.

    [ Parent ]

    Unity ticket? (none / 0) (#60)
    by rilkefan on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:33:33 PM EST
    I think Clinton would need Obama on the ticket - to heal the party for one thing, to keep her from picking Bayh for another - but also to bring Obama's talents into the fray in Nov.  In the unlikely event he implodes enough to make him clearly not the nominee, would he still be an ok VP?

    [ Parent ]
    No. If he's too toxic now to get elected (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:39:20 PM EST
    president, how can voters pick a ticket that means he's a heartbeat away from it?

    [ Parent ]
    I asked this earlier today; Is Obama so damaged (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:50:28 PM EST
    he is no longer a good choice for VP?

    The ReThug ads would look like the Childers ad, but with Hillary as the target.

    Drat.

    [ Parent ]

    That may be that they go after Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:44:34 PM EST
    but as she has said earlier in the campaign, "I will punch back."  That is the big difference between Barack and Hillary.  She is quicker at the counterpunch  without hesitation.

    [ Parent ]
    I relate (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:18:58 PM EST
    Now enough whining from both of us, there's no crying in politics......only tearing up ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Obama can survive losing the nomination.... (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:27:09 PM EST
    ...losing to Mccain in the GE, OTOH, will sink his career for a long time.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:31:51 PM EST
    played it coy, got great kudos for an apologetic speech, and got weeks of good press.

    Time to pay the bill.

    He forgot one little thing.  He was dealing with another human being with a mind of his own and a very large ego.

    Calling his former spiritual mentor "a crazy uncle" may have had something to do with Wright's actions, you know.

    You can't do that to people.

    [ Parent ]

    In January Bush has to leave the White House (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:08:31 PM EST
    right?  So something is bound to get better?

    Not if the new President (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:10:45 PM EST
    is McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    Not even McCain (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:22:12 PM EST