Letters to the Editor
-
Well, this settles it
My subscription is up in about 90 days and I'm going to let it lapse. Too bad, Salon, it's been a good run.
I've been here since almost the beginning. Salon has been, until recently, interesting and different. When Salon asked for subscriptions I signed up right away. The unique and compelling content was worth paying for to keep around.
Now you've let Joan Walsh turn it into Hil4Prez.Salon.Com. This latest bit of idiotic hackery, published on the eve of the May 6th primaries no less, has sealed the deal.
Adios, Salon.
-
The lone dissenter
Amongst the countless experts out there, you have found one of the few who says that Obama is wrong about the gas tax. How is this any different than giving voice to one of the dozen or so scientists who say that global warming is a hoax?
-
wish list
"But if Clinton replaces the lost revenue with a windfall profit tax on oil companies, as she insists is necessary, then there would be no harm to our infrastructure repair work."
While we're at it, I'll take a vacation home in Vail, a gold-plated toilet, and...ooh! ooh!...a Ferrari cake!
If Clinton can pass a windfall oil profit tax, I figure she can get me a Ferrari cake. This article is based on some assumptions that may be economically feasible, but are a political joke. Ramming a climate change bill through Congress that forces polluters to buy permits is one thing, but directly attacking the profits of the oil companies is a non-starter. There's a difference between blind optimism and optimistic realism, Mr. Frost.
And: if we're all snickering about the efficacy of a $600 tax break to fix the slumping economy, how pathetic is a $30 tax break?
-
I loved this one:
Of *course* Obama has pandered in his career. How could he not? He knows a pander when he hears it, and just as Clinton is being a hack opportunist, Obama is calling her on it.
So when Obama panders, he is just gaining experience so he will know when other politicians pander. When Clinton panders she is a "hack opportunist."
What a double standard some of these Obama supporters have!
-
Assume consumers will get 60% of the reduction in tax burden
But Clinton proposes a windfall tax against the oil companies to make it revenue neutral.
So what was the reduction in tax burden on a gallon of gas?
That's right: ZERO!!!!
And 60% of ZERO is ZERO!!!
-
Salon Has Officially Jumped The Shark
Let's see... an issue where Hillary Clinton could not name a single economist to support her position. In fact, the vast majority pretty much called her out on her witless pandering, including Paul Krugman.
But Salon, that bastion of balanced reporting, somehow finds someone who, through use of twisted reporting and twisted logic, supports Clinton's idea. Everything Mr. Frost presupposes is about as likely to happen as the moon hitting the earth tomorrow.
I have some information for you Joan and George (as if you didn't know, but you're too disingenuous to point out). Hillary Clinton opposed eliminating the gas tax in 2000 when running for the Senate.
"I reject my opponent's proposal of eliminating the gas tax. One of the few sources of revenue that we actually get more of than we send to Washington is gas tax money for our transportation needs." -- Hillary Clinton, 2000
Hillary, where is your optimism? And Joan, you've officially jumped the shark as editor. Why not simply leave your job at Salon and sign on for the Clinton campaign. They're quite used to wasting money and you'd fit right in.
-
Where does the other $0.13 go?
The author claims we'll see a decrease of 5 cents per gallon. The Federal gas tax is 18.4 cents. So I will see a decrease of about $0.65 on a tank of gas, and someone, somewhere, will pocket that extra $1.74. From everyone.
Regarding the windfall tax, if the costs to run a business increase, why WOULDN'T the oil companies increase prices? You can legislate that the price of gas must reflect the removal of the tax, but you can't possibly legislate that the price of gas must also not reflect increasing taxes on the oil companies. How would that even be possible?
If you're basing an argument on trusting the oil companies to do the right thing for the consumer, your argument is awful.
-
What tripe!
Funny, when McCain hatched the idea, Salon ran a piece called ‘McCain’s Gassy Tax Relief’, slamming the idea. Now that Clinton has reformulated the matter, it’s suddenly brilliant.
The fact remains that most people will save very little money. I commute to work in a Chevy Metro, and drive about two hours per day. I estimate I’ll save $44 in three months, or about $14.67 a month. I suppose wealthier people driving gas guzzling SUVs and sports cars stand to save more, but why encourage fuel inefficiency in the first place? Isn’t that one of the key factors driving prices up?
And how is this really going to impact my grocery bills in any meaningful way? Am I going to suddenly splurge and buy a steak once a month? $3.17 a week is not going to make a difference in my grocery bill.
I'm also currently supporting my bf who has broken his arm, has no insurance, and has been unable to work for two months. I can safely say we are at the lower end of the economic scale. The assertion that $3 a week will be some kind of windfall is rubbish.
Joan Walsh continues to blemish her already loopy editorial judgment by publishing such inanities.
-
Pathetic
... just like Clinton's campaign ... I posted a bit awhile back, but got sick of the fairly constant hopeless blither by the like of Joan Walsh, and now this ... it just gets worse and worse. Yep, give the gas guzzling pigs a holiday ... remniscent of the $600 stimulus check in my bank account .... just bs political shenanigans that mean nothing to the typical American, other than to keep us enslaved to the almgighty dollar and the politics of greed. Move over GW - here comes Hillary and she don't like E-COmmunists any more than you.
-
The Lone Ranger, sans Tonto
How is this any different than giving voice to one of the dozen or so scientists who say that global warming is a hoax?
This guy is a lawyer, not an economist.
You ever heard that chestnut that doctors make the worst investors?
A high level of skill and accomplishment in one field doesn't automagically transfer over to a new one. If an economist had written this piece, it would have more credibility.
And there's no way windfall profits tax legislation can
- get passed by this summer, it will take longer than that
- get out of the senate where it will be filibustered
- get signed by the President, where it will be vetoed.
So how are we going to pay for fixing our roads?