Letters to the Editor
-
MORE driving?
I thought we were supposed to be encouraging people to drive less, not more, for hte good of the environment. I love how Hillary talks out of both sides of her mouth - she will say supports saving the planet, but also supports measures that will encourage people to drive more. (actually, she will say anything if it will get her votes, it increasingly seems...)
Yeah, the high gas prices suck - I don't like paying them - but is it a really bad thing? If it encourages people to get up off their arses (obesity is another huge problem, as we all know) and use public transport, is it that bad? Maybe increased demand on public transport will encourage better funding of it?
Why do people act like low-priced gas is a right enshrined in the constitution? We don't pay very much for gas, compared with the rest of the world, and, nice as it would be for me to save money on gas, is it really good for my health and the health of the planet? It really is quite selfish of people to want such a small, short term saving than think about the much bigger picture.
-
Worst Article Ever.
Considering it is the day of the last major primary of the year, this article is frustratingly bad and a blatant push to try to help Hillary's campaign survive.
Hillary can not name one economist who thinks this is a good idea, but Salon finds (not an economist) but a lawyer who thinks that $30 per driver is enough reason to bankrupt the highway fund. On top of the fact THAT NANCY PELOSI SAID SHE WOULD NOT EVEN BRING IT UP, and Hillary has not even WRITTEN a bill to TRY to make this to happen.
What a complete and udder crock of shit. I thought it couldn't get any worse here at Salon, and yet it does.
-
He's wrong all right
Do you not find it striking that the GOP Congress which never saw a tax cut it didn't like isn't jumping on the tax free holiday barn wagon? Why the news media suddenly overnight began to care about the opinion of economists? Why helping taxpayers who are putting $70 in their gas tank every fill up is suddenly outrageous? Why Mr. Obama is so vociferous against it? I couldn't figure it out until this morning watching television. The gas tax holiday requires some minimal oversight of the oil industry to be effective. President Obama who already is very cozy with the nuclear energy industry is going to be make George W. Bush look like a card carrying member of the Sierra Club, mark my words.
-
Bad stats ...
The study is titled "$2.00 Gas! Studying the Effects of a Gas Tax Moratorium," by Joseph J. Doyle Jr. and Krislert Samphantharak. Download the PDF here. The authors concluded that "the suspension of the 5% sales tax led to decreases in retail prices of 3% compared to neighboring states. And when the tax was reinstated, retail prices rose by roughly 4%."
This seems a GREAT example of completely misleading statistics. Unless I am badly mistaken, a 5% tax on gas means that 5% of the Illinois price for a gallon of gas will be added to that price. However, the quoted study doesn't address how much the price of a gallon of gas in Illinois changed relative to the previous price of gas in Illinois. Instead, it says the removal of the tax led to a drop of "3% compared to neighboring states." Thats comparing apples and elephants, especially with no information about the difference in prices across states prior to the removal of the tax. If the 5% tax was removed in Illinois, and the savings passed on to the consumer, then the price of gas in Illinois would have dropped 5% relative to the price at the pump before the tax was removed. There is no evidence that happened, nor is there any evidence from this study that the price of gas in Illinois dropped AT ALL relative to the price at the pump prior to the removal of he tax. How other states priced their gas isn't really relevant to the discussion, as far as I can see ... the only relevant comparison is the price of gas at an Illinois pump before and after the removal of the 5% tax ... but I don't see anything in this study that reports on that comparison. That leads me to believe that these statistics are being used to misdirect readers to a conclusion that simply isn't warranted.
-
Bitter?
Is Hillary saying that people are bitter because of the tax on and the price of gas? Isn't that elitist or some such nonsense? What's good for the goose I suppose.. Guess what America, the price of gas is never going down again. "Change" indeed!
-
Salon@HillaryClinton.com
When did Salon.com become indistinguishable from HillaryClinton.com? First there's Sean Wilentz's "new math" delegate-miscounting piece, now this nonsense. And we shouldn't forget Joan Walsh's daily "just vote for the woman, never mind her voting record, policies or ethics" insults to the intelligence of actual women voters.
Frost cites no firm case for the so-called "holiday" whatsoever. A generous interpretation of the arguments in the piece is that maybe, possibly it could potentially save drivers $30-50 -- not per week, or even per month, mind you, but a one-shot. It's a tax break of dinner and a movie for one: utterly insignificant for individuals, nonsense public policy for the nation.
-
Flawed Logic
Your logic is flawed by one obvious fact. Clinton's summer gas tax holiday plan calls for a windfall profits tax to counteract the reduced tax. Does anyone seriously think that the current administration would not veto such a tax or that the current Congress would override said veto? I used to be a Clinton supporter, but I really am getting fed up with her pandering.
-
The comments section peaked when
someone called Obama the antichrist. Can I get a "WOW!" from the peanut gallery on that one?
-
I'm sorry, but how many Nobel Prizes have you won?
Because it sounds like Obama's lined up four Nobel winners who disagree with you, along with over two hundred other economists from across the political spectrum. I know that they're "elite" and all, but forgive me if I take their word over yours.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aTzCmqCNyLho&refer=home