Letters to the Editor
-
Like I said after the last Obama...
...bashing by line...
I will not be renewing my subscription to Salon next year. Joan Walsh has flushed this site down the toilet.
How can anyone in their right mind think we need to lower the price of gas? The fundamental issue is that gas should be more expensive - it will discourage use of a finite natural resource that also happens to be the source of many of our foriegn policy woes as well... Eurpoe has been paying 5 dollar or so a gallon for years - and they get by just fine. I guess more people might consider (shock, horror) riding a bus, or a train to work. Or car pooling... Or not buying another 5 miles to the gallon Hummer. Maybe compact cars will come back with a vengeance (thank god)... I'm sick of seeing your grill in my rearview mirror.
Honestly, what a crock - why don;t you just call this Hillary Magazine fer cryin out loud.
-
Shorter George Frost
The gas tax will provide an insignificant saving to consumers, which is good.
The gas tax will provide an insignificant rise in gasoline usage, which is insignificant.
A big gas tax is a good idea but politically infeasible, therefore we should do the opposite and remove the little tax that we have.
A complicated audit-based profit tax on the oil companies will be no problem. They won't be able to hide their profits offshore or through fancy bookkeeping.
-
A ridiculous defense of a ridiculous proposal.
I can see the HRC wing of Salon has joined her in the faith-based community where you must no longer "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality."
Since I’m currently working to try and pay for a war here, I don’t have time to dissect this “article” and point out each of its faults. But, here is one example:
The author states that “Obama dismisses Clinton's proposal to suspend the 18.4 cent per gallon federal gas tax as: 1) a political gimmick that will not deliver any significant relief to consumers…” he then notes “each of Obama's attack lines is either factually incorrect, or based on flawed logic” before going on to admit “let's face it: This is a tiny price cut.”
I’m not sure how this tiny price cut amounts to anything significant enough to rise to the level of being factually incorrect or based on flawed logic but apparently the author “believes” it does.
The most ridiculous aspect of this whole “debate” however, is that it is meaningless. As yet, HRC has not introduced the “Summer Tax Holiday Oil Company Windfall Profits Elect Me Act of 2008”. And, as she is still just a candidate for the primary, all this is just campaign trail blather. Could this weakly managed Democratic majority in Congress actually pass legislation that suspends the gas tax and assess a profits tax on Big Oil? No. If they could, would Bush sign it into law? No. Does this amount to more that just a ridiculous debate? Sadly, no. Staking out a position on an issue that doesn’t really exist strikes me as pandering.
If one refuses to acknowledge reality it cannot be. (I think Strauss said that)
Warmest regards,
-
Population, again.
I don't get it. I read the article and about 8 pages of letters about local and federal taxes, gasoline and whether Salon is Hillary biased but human population wasn't mentioned, again. It seems our numbers and the energy we use and the pollution we produce are completely divorced entities in the minds of editors and most readers here.
I don't think I'll renew my subscription.
Hermit
-
What a misleading title!
The body of Obama's argument consists of more than what you've covered. You use the phrase "if properly implemented". What you should be saying is "if the Republicans pass it."
Which is highly unlikely. No self-respecting (self-serving) Republican would pass a windfall profits tax on oil companies. I can't imagine the weight of the veto that would be dropped on that bill, but I imagine it would be the size of an elephant.
Which means - and what you've failed to note - is that the 8 billion (which may or may not be passed on to the consumer, but which you yourself have estimated to be approximately five (5) cents) would be taken away from roads, highways, bridges, and American jobs. 300,000 American jobs, to be precise.
Are you - or any other decent American - willing to take that risk for five measly cents or - in a dream world - $70? Now over 200 economists are against a national gas tax suspension, including four Nobel prize winners. This should give Americans some clue that the gas tax is a bad, bad, bad idea.
What kind of country are we now living in, where those with the highest education - the ones who know most by action, by study, and by merit - are labeled as elitist and written off? I was always taught to respect wisdom, and if anyone possesses economical wisdom, it would be a body of 200+ economists, including four men who've won Nobel prizes precisely for their knowledge on situations like this.
This title is deceptive, your assertions are specious, and any one layperson who believes they know better than 200 qualified economists is obviously experiencing signs of delusion and megalomania.
-
Clinton Has A Black Belt In Pandering
I'm sorry, but after these eight years of hell, the price of gas is near the bottom on my list of major concerns. Isn't that just another weapon of mass distraction? And yes, I do think it's pandering, and no, I rarely ever believe what comes out of Hillary's mouth to be sincere. Every last word that comes out of it is calculated and presumes we're all idiots who just want to be sweet talked, which of course some of us are. Personally, I'm tired of both those who don't give a damn about my concerns, and those who simply want me to believe they do give a damn until they win an election. If the price of gas is now everyone's main concern in this failing society, then we are truly doomed as a democracy. And on the pandering point, Obama is dead on. I'm glad he had the guts to call it. I see Hillary is now trying to use his response to claim Obama doesn't care about gas prices or your personal suffering, proving her martial arts prowess in pandering.