Gas-Tax Holiday as a litmus test for POTUS

[ForeverNight]

Sorry if I gave the impression that I was thinking of this in the terms of a suspension of the raising of taxes. In my earlier post I was referring to the new Federal Gas Tax that passed, last month or so.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[EnderWiggin]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

_EW_

[tk102]

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

More tax-cuts to be made permanent under McCain.

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

Agreed. It seems that the Speaker of the House and the House Majority Leader are saying it basically doesn't have much foothold in Congress:

On Wednesday, it was House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) who said he would not favor a tax holiday. But the signal that the proposals would have little chance of passage for this summer came Thursday, from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). In a press conference, she said she did not support the idea and would not be pushing for it. Asked for her specific objections, Pelosi said, "There is no reason to believe any moratorium on the gas tax will be passed on to consumers. That's first and foremost... Second of all, it would defeat everything that we have been trying to do to lower the cost of oil."

~ Source

[Totenkopf]

More tax-cuts to be made permanent under McCain.

 

Agreed. It seems that the Speaker of the House and the House Majority Leader are saying it basically doesn't have much foothold in Congress:

~ Source

 

 

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

[Achilles]

But, I still can't see this as blatant pandering.

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

 

But, nor do I see it in McCain's justification. I think that it was more of a "Here, your gas just got a little more expensive for summer than in winter" instead of "Here, now vote for me!" or, "Here Exxon/Texaco/Shell/BP/et cetera."

You and I are both entitled to our opinions. Again, it doesn't make sense economically, so I suspect there is some other motivation at work.

 

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

Or just elected, period

 

And, well, if the money is going to go somewhere and its not the Federal Government, I would rather it went to the Oil Companies than somewhere else. At least, that way they can pour more into R&D and try to develop yet more efficient fuels than Gasoline, which is still the most efficient fuel we have yet.

A lot of things wrong with this, but I'll stick to the most glaring issue:

 

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

 

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

 

And, if they can produce more efficient fuels that don't need gasoline, or lesser amounts of it, than maybe we won't be in such problems when the countries that have Oil decide that we are infidels and deserve to die...

Except that our companies are heavily investing in the infrastructure in those countries. Good luck convincing them to abandon their investments when there are still profits to be made.

 

So why aren't Hil and McCain being rebuked for this more openly?

Rebuked by who? The minority of Americans that know better? Or by the majority of Americans that have never taken a macro-economics course that only see what the evening news tells them to see?

 

They both are still supporting it, even though there has been some criticism. I think that someone should pretty much tell it to them straight - this is a bad plan. They need to cut their losses and stop backing it.

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

 

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

Or something else entirely.

 

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

Don't think intentional deception would rank too highly either

 

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

 

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

Precisely my argument as well

[EnderWiggin]

Rebuked by who? The minority of Americans that know better? Or by the majority of Americans that have never taken a macro-economics course that only see what the evening news tells them to see?

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

 

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

 

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

 

Or something else entirely.

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

 

 

Don't think intentional deception would rank too highly either

Very true.

 

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

 

I don't know which is worse.

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

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

My turn to lol

 

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

 

Yes, I agree that would be nice.

 

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

I have absolute faith in the political process. I have very little faith in the "educated citizenry" that the Framers were counting on to keep the system in check.

 

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

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

 

I don't know which is worse.

Mistakes can be forgiven, if the person who makes them acknowledges the error. Lying on the other hand...

[EnderWiggin]

My turn to lol

 

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

 

Yes, I agree that would be nice.

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

I have absolute faith in the political process. I have very little faith in the "educated citizenry" that the Framers were counting on to keep the system in check.

Tomato, Tomahto.

Shall I go on?

I'm sure you can, but it's making me a bit depressed.. so.... no thanks.

Mistakes can be forgiven, if the person who makes them acknowledges the error. Lying on the other hand...

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

 

_EW_

[mimartin]

Mistakes can be forgiven, if the person who makes them acknowledges the error.

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

I don’t really care about the scale of a mistake. To me all mistakes are forgivable provide the person making the mistake learns from their error. We all make mistakes in judgment, learning from the mistake “should” enable us to avoid the same type of mistake in the future. Mistakes IMO are part of the learning process. Now if someone continues to do the same thing with the same results, that is no longer a mistake, it is stupidity.

 

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

 

Lying on the other hand proves stupidity without the mistakes.

[SilentScope001]

Mistakes can be forgiven, if the person who makes them acknowledges the error.

 

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

 

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

 

Or, in other words, get back on topic!

[Totenkopf]

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

 

Check yourt figures.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question417.htm

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/a_picture_is_wo.php

 

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

 

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

 

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

[mimartin]

Uh. A tax cut is not going to kill people.

Less spending on bridges and highways could not possible kill people?

 

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

 

Perhaps you mean the same public that doesn't blindly believe in 2x taxation on income previously taxed (not including sales taxes).

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

[Totenkopf]

Hence the comment above about sales taxes being excepted (though I'm sure many wouldn't mind seeing those disappear or be reduced).

[Achilles]

Less spending on bridges and highways could not possible kill people?

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

 

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

Or heck, sales tax in general.

[EnderWiggin]

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

_EW_

 

EDIT::

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

 

QFE.

[Totenkopf]

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

[Jae Onasi]

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

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

Yes, things are generally fine in the topic department.

 

Leave the moderating to the moderators please, kthx

[Tommycat]

Hey mimartin, how about the opposite side of the coin for the environmentalists.

 

People like their big gas guzzling cars.

Automakers aren't selling any of their overpriced econoboxes in the US.

They make a deal with the oil companies to get them to raise prices so that people will get rid of the Suburbans and Excursions and buy the econoboxes.

 

As for why gas prices go up in between fuel delivery:

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

 

Oil companies:

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

[mimartin]

So, do you want to destroy people's retirement funds?

Never said I did. Even said an investigation was a waste of money and time lawmaker could be wasting elsewhere. Besides, I never said I did not own stock in the oil industry, did I? As part of a diversified portfolio, I recommend investing with many different companies in different industries and stay away from companies that use Star Wars names where George Lucas isn’t the main stockholder.

 

Automakers aren't selling any of their overpriced econoboxes in the US.

You may want to talk to Achilles about this one. I believe he bought what you would describe an econobox. I also know a few other fellow member own them. Personally, I now own the gas-guzzler of my dreams.

[Tommycat]

Never said I did. Even said an investigation was a waste of money and time lawmaker could be wasting elsewhere. Besides, I never said I did not own stock in the oil industry, did I? As part of a diversified portfolio, I recommend investing with many different companies in different industries and stay away from companies that use Star Wars names where George Lucas isn’t the main stockholder.

Yeah I forgot to include the icon when I posted that. It was meant sorta tongue in cheek.

 

You may want to talk to Achilles about this one. I believe he bought what you would describe an econobox. I also know a few other fellow member own them. Personally, I now own the gas-guzzler of my dreams.

I'm actually one that decided to get rid of my Suburban for a far more fuel efficient Impala. Driving 40+ miles a day it made more sense than the burb. Of course being over 6 foot tall, I couldn't go with a small vehicle. I like my knees, but not enough to eat them. What I'm saying is that it could be auto manufacturers dealing in secret back rooms with oil companies to raise prices to get their cars, that they have spent great sums of cash developing, sold. The oil company gets the benefit of the auto manufacturers not releasing gasoline free cars.

[El Sitherino]

Maybe he means they will be cutting out the artificial increase in cost placed on gasoline by the companies.

 

That's just my guess, however.

[mimartin]

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

 

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

[El Sitherino]

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

 

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

[mimartin]

Oh I agree with everything you’ve stated, El Sitherino, the conspiracy theory I was speaking about was mine from post 12 in this thread.

 

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

QFT

[El Sitherino]

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

 

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