can we please stop lying about Clinton and the gas tax

First, I don't particularly think her plan is a wise idea. Honestly, I think it will end up being a wash in all probability. But it won't cost the government money. She has repeatedly said she would pay for that tax holiday by taxing the windfall profits of oil companies. She said that from day one. Saying that the government will lose money from this is a lie, plain and simple.

Repuke tactics.

:eyes: Every one who possibly can is looking to get into play with this election. Even as far as the super-delegates go for either candidate....every one has a bias, a reason and more often than not an agenda.

And any that are, are simply pointing out the FACT that we had 0.6% growth last quarter.... that's horrible, that's anemic, that's pathetic..... but it's not a recession.

Look at the big picture of more than a 3 month span. Look at the difference in the inflation rate and the cost of living rate compared to earnings rates. When we base our economic tallies with the big companies factored in, of course it is not a recession-for them. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class is shrinking. Say what you want...the average American is suffering form recession.

Two straight quarters of NEGATIVE growth.


That's it. The base word for recession is "recede".... i.e... the opposite of to grow.



"Recession" is not a word that you can re-define any way you want.


Two straight quarters of NEGATIVE growth. When THAT happens, we're in a recession.

now hillary will redefine definitions for us?

Try this - go downtown and ask the first ten people you meet if they care bout the technical definition of a recession. Then ask them if they are better off now than they were eight years ago. Then ask them if they think the gas tax holiday is a god idea. This is naked political pandering and nothing else.

...but that doesn't give us the right to re-define the English language.


Words MEAN things.


A) I agree wholeheartedly with you over the gas tax holiday. It is BAD POLICY.

B) People are worse off than when Bush took office. He's been a horrendous failure.


Neither of those two things allow us to redefine a word when we feel like it.

I'm just saying...

Enjoy your Saturday!

there is much controversy as to exactly how to define a recession, and there are problems with any definition.

the obvious problem with your definition (which is certainly the simple front-runner among non-economists) is that a recession depends on the calendar.

if the economy goes in reverse for the 7 months from january through july, that's a recession (q1 and q2 show negative growth).

but if the economy does the EXACT SAME THING during the 7 months from february through august, it MIGHT NOT be a recession. q2 is certainly negative, but if january and september were sufficiently strong, both q1 and q3 could show slight growth. ergo no recession.

that is certainly an unsatisfying outcome. you'd like to think that if a period of contraction is a "recession", then it is regardless of when it takes place.

other problems stem from the fact that gdp is a gross total and doesn't reflect the full dynamics of the entire economy. in theory, one company can have an astoundingly spectacular year while every other company contracts a tiny amount, so that gdp is positive but it is not remotely shared. this is also an unsatisfying result, you wouldn't want to call that growth on the whole when virtually everyone's experience is recession.



http://www.nber.com/ has a vastly more complicated formula and is widely regarded as the definitive authority among economists.

Paul Krugman is among those saying that this idea is a gimmick and he is one who has been in the HRC camp.

they've always done it, but lately, the lies are getting more and more outrageous.

The prices will go up when the oil companies decide to raise their prices commensurate with her "windfall tax".


Then... when the summer is over.... and the gas tax is re-instituted.... the prices will be HIGHER.



It's a bad plan all around.... for the economy, for jobs, for the government, for the environment.


It is not surprising, given her problems with math, that Hillary would come up with such a stupid plan.


Math-challenged.... just like her supporters.

If I score higher the difference in our scores gets donated to Clinton if you do Obama. Put your money where your mouth is.

.... so, if you are REALLY good at math... then you are suffering from cognitive dissonance, or simply a lack of logic.



150 world-class economists on one side..... You and Hillary on the other.


I think we know who's probably right here.

First, I don't particularly think her plan is a wise idea.

Was it the word don't? Was it think? Was it idea? I am sure this will become my fault that you either can't or won't read posts before commenting on them. But I clearly, unambiguously stated, in clear language that I didn't support the idea. What I did say, and do stand behind, is that it is a lie to say the government will lose money over this.

Now are you going to put up or shut up on the math challange.

Graduated 1989, University of Pittsburgh, Computer Science/Math Double-Major, cum laude.


You're on.

I'll let you set the details. I will insist computer science be off the table since you have a degree in that and I am lucky to get windows to work.

challenge, that makes it incumbent on you to set it up.

clinton people still havent redefined "is" yet

Get off your high horse. Isn't being a Hillary supporter and being good at math an oxymoron anyway?

put up. You pick the test. Go ahead.

LOL! :rofl:

Also, I got an 800 on the math section of the GREs, paving my road to engineering grad school at MIT.

NEXT!

just one, where I say Hillary isn't behind in delegates. Site just one, single solitary post. BTW I got an 800 on my math GRE as well.

Haven't figured out the likelihood question yet? It's okay to just admit that you're about as good at math as Hillary is.

Still waiting...

I don't have a graphing calc and home and have to use microsofts.

Clearly we need to use the verbal score as a tiebreaker, and I win by pointing out it should be 'cite' rather than 'site'. :evilgrin:

I'm not sure why people are arguing with your OP though.

Her supporters would be the ones constantly coming off as smug assholes.

but will probably stump you. Here we go, and it has relevancy to the primaries as well:

A SurveyUSA poll in Oregon reported yesterday that Obama=50%, Hillary=44%, with a margin of error of 3.9%. They polled 650 likely voters for the state's upcoming Democratic Primary. The grass is green and the sky is blue. Hillary is evil. Use whatever information you need to answer this question:

What is the percent likelihood that Obama is 'truly' leading Hillary in Oregon based on the results of this poll.

Most political pundits on TV can't answer this, so don't feel bad if you can't. I won't keep the light on waiting for you, and it's not too late to try to book a room at a Holiday Inn Express. :rofl:

Obama's support is distributed with mean .50 and standard deviation of .50. Hers is .44 with a standard devation of .50. We want to find the probability that the mean of obama - mean of clinton is positive. For that we need the t value of 0. .06/(.5/650^.5) which comes out to 3.06 which (I have to use a chart here) yields a percent between 99.75 and 99.9. The words you are looking for are "I am sorry I was such an ass"

So many mistakes, where to begin:

1. You need to use a z-score, not a t-test.

2. The standard deviation is .5? Does that even make any sense? So it's Obama = 50% plus or minus 50%? WOW!

3. The margin of error is 0.039 as given in the polling data yet the standard deviation is 0.5? Aren't you concerned about this difference? You just pulled that .5 number out of thin air, just admit it.

4. "We want to find the probability that the mean of obama - mean of clinton is positive." The only thing correct about your post.

5. Everyone good at math asks, "Does my answer make sense?" Yours doesn't. 99.75 and 99.9% is WAY too high.

6. At first glance it looks like you understand statistics, but looking at your standard deviation thinking shows me that you have no idea. Here's why: You vastly overestimated (i.e. pulled out of thin air) the standard deviation number. .5? Way too high. The polling company would be fired for publishing such useless info. That's the kind of error you would expect if you only called your parents and reported their answers as a real poll. What's even more disturbing is that you seem to be unable to visualize a bell curve. The mean of a number plus/minus 1 standard deviation accounts for 68% of the area under the curve. If they are only separated by 6 percentage points yet have a standard deviation of 50 percentage points, there would be huge overlap of their bell curves. So even if you believed in your faulty .5 standard deviation, it does not make sense alongside your 99.75 to 99.9 percent prediction.

You remind me of some of the undergrads I used to grade at MIT when I worked as a teacher's assistant. You would be the type to come and complain that I took off too many points on a certain question on their test. I would have taken off the normal points for your answer being wrong, but would have penalized you a little extra because

1) the .5 standard deviation came out of thin air. If you're going to be wrong, at least show some effort thinking about the problem. Why did you choose .5 instead of .51 or .49 or .5023? Just because it sounded like a nice, clean, good number?.

2) the 99.75 and 99.9 prediction don't make sense alongside the .5 standard deviation, so you either can't visualize bell curves or don't understand them very well. See, your answer is wrong, but it's not because of a propagation of the error from the wrong standard deviation, so more points must be taken off.

If it makes you feel better, I think you might be better at math than a lot of the engineering undergrads at MIT. Try not to pat yourself on the back too much.

Alright, class dismissed. I don't get paid enough to personally educate you. You should thank me though, because you're closer to understanding how to answer this question.

I got the standard deviation by working backward using z scores. They get the standard devation down using the sample size of 650. Which is how they get that down. If you don't believe my figures work it backward. 0.039 = 1.96(standard deviation/650^.5) Solving that backward gets a standard deviation of .5.

As to using a t test, I stand behind that decision. We are comparing the difference of two means. Even using a z test I don't think the answer is going to change much (the t curve and the normal curve converge with higher degrees of freedom (the chart I used had 100 and 1000 but that didn't change the answer).

The only place within the intervals where there is any overlap at all is when Hillary is above 47 and Obama below 47.9. In both cases the most unlikely part of the intervals. I will admit to having problems with the 2.5% outside the intervals that should have shown up.

STOP THE DRAMA
VOTE OBAMA!!!!:bounce:

Having lived in northern VA, I'm partial to anybody from that area. Please enjoy your honorary degree. Oh, and if you put it on your resume, don't have them contact me. :-)

Thanks for the degree
I have to call my mom
she will be so proud!

I'm sure that your mom will be proud of your honorary degree. And thanks for spreading the good word about Obama in NOVA. I always thought that the first big nail in the Hillary for President coffin was her crushing defeat in the Potomac Primaries. Especially since some political pundits were giving her an outside chance at a victory in VA, and she went on to lose by 29 points. 29 points! That's like 3 blowouts all at the same time. :rofl:

Come on math whiz, stop piddling around. Would you like for me to give you a hint on the 'likelihood' question? No wonder you're a Hillary supporter. An empty pantsuit, all talk with nothing to back it up.

Yes I do have other things I have to do.

than it had been between your posting of the question and your posting of the snarky request for an answer.

I took about 40 minutes to answer your question. In that very short period of time you posted not one, not two, but three seperate snarky posts demanding an answer. It has been not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, not six, but seven hours since I posted that answer and not one single solitary word in response. This is sadly typical of Obama supporting bullies of this website.

windfall profit tax. which is it?

or is it both?

She is pandering in the worst way and she is lying about one of the programs she will pay for.

Depends on which state she is in. If an upcoming state has a great interest in alternative energy, she'll change her tune. A true chameleon disguised as a politician.

She is promising the money to go into research into new fuels so it's being twice promised so actually yes she is lying.

that tax holiday by taxing the windfall profits of oil companies. Can one senator from NY ram that through and make it work, especially since she and the other two candidates have essentially been away from their real job for over a year.

vote for her because of 35$ of saved gas money, they are as stupid as she thinks they are.

Has she introduced her windfall profits tax/gas tax holiday bill yet? Who is sponsoring a version of it in the house? Oh that's right, there is no bill. There won't be a bill. She is talking out her ass.

It would be bad enough if it were just pandering. But it's an outright lie, too. There's no way in hell that windfall tax and gas tax cut is going to pass the house and senate, and be signed into law by Bush, especially not by the end of the month. Clinton knows this very well.

Would she not think that oil companies would pass that 'windfall tax' along to consumers in the form of higher prices at the pump?

gas tax holiday offset by taxing oil companies<no gas tax holiday + taxing oil companies.

It's a ridiculous idea.

The part that jumped out at me is that anyone who does this kind of quick-fix pandering obviously thinks we are idiots.

She already promised that windfall profit money to her renewable energy plan.

So where is it going to go? TO pay for the renewable energy OR to make up the difference b/c of this idiotic gas tax holiday?

Or does 2+2=8 in CLinton land these days?

#2 - if that's enough of a psychological boost to some, it will increase driving causing increased demand and a RISE in prices. #3 - Do you honestly think Shrub would sign a windfall profits tax for big oil? And, if he did, #4 - Big oil would raise the price of gas to cover it. This is political pandering at its dumbest, nothing more.

either it will or it won't decrease prices. You can't argue that it won't decrease prices but then say demand will increase because prices will decrease.

it is and decrease the price, but if suddenly a rush to visit Grandma over summer vacation causes demand to rise, the gas companies will raise the price. I'm sorry if you don't get that. Decreased consumption means more gas available and a lower price. Increased consumption means less gas available and a higher price. We need to be conserving and Hillary's silly plan encourages the exact opposite.

Regardless of a stupid "tax holiday". The oil cos. have seen us pay $3.60, and just because the government abstains, nothing will stop it from going back up. Up to $4.00, WITHOUT the fed tax. Then, who do we bring that 20 cent tax back. Holiday over, sucks for you. The pukes will frame it as a tax increase, just as they do with chimpy's tax cuts. The holiday would never end, prices would continue to go up, and the windfall tax from the oils cos. won't cover it. It won't cover all the things Hillary is promising.

This isn't going anywhere. Reid and many other Dems are against it, for good reason, it is a stupid pander, and nothing more.

The cost to the federal government and the Highway Trust Fund will happen ASAP. As soon as the tax is repealed, the money flow stops. When will the oil windfall profit tax take place? Notice how Hillary never mentions WHEN that will happen. They won't be getting the money this summer, so the Highway Trust Fund will dry up and put many construction jobs at risk.

Also, both Hillary and Obama have already talked about using an oil windfall profit tax in order to fund alternative energy initiatives and research. This is why Hillary's proposal is so ludicrous. She is taking away the money proposed to fund alternative energy initiatives in order to encourage. . .MORE USE OF OIL!

Oh how I wish I was a Hillary supporter living in lala land.

yah right.

I drive 100 miles to work a day and over the summer I'll save 13 dollars. The government can keep the money and do the windfall tax as well...pay off some of that debt.

her tax holiday costs money that way.

A windfall profits tax on Big Oil will become a reality on the day hell freezes over.

that's why she sent out a surrogate who's an Oil Lobbyist working for Shell to convince us all of what a great idea it is....
yeah....

specifically alternate energy?

IS she going to spend it twice?

print more money to make up the difference. What harm can come from that? :rofl:

It sounded good at first until all the experts laughed at Hillary on this..

She cant even get one expert to agree with her. When pressured on this her and her surrogates just point to polls saying that the voters think it is a good idea.

Is that how she is going to run a WH? Even if something is not a good policy and will actually cause harm, if it polls well she is all for it?

-----------------------------------------

MSM has broken from their queen on this these last few days before Tuesday, this is not good for her campaign..

Hopefully she has another scary commercial or crying moment in the next day or so to counter this..

roundly criticized the idea. It's a BAD idea. It's also pandering. And she topped it off with that absurd "you're either with us or against us" bullshit yesterday.

Huge, pandering misstep. There's no way to pretty it up.

Big Oil will not allow Congress to pass a windfall profits tax.
The idea is beyond pandering. It's sheer insanity.
It will destroy 300,000 jobs, while saving the average driver 30 cents a day. And that 30 cents assumes the oil companies won't raise the price by the same amount as the tax.
Gosh, what will drivers do with their savings? If they save up for a week they could buy a cup of coffee.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gastax2-2008may02,0,6024891.story

Congress and the Senate have a say in this? This would have no chance of getting passed in time for this summer even if it were a reasonable thing to do. But it isn't even reasonable according to just about everyone else - except for John McCain. It was his idea in the first place.

right now, because she can't get this done and she knows it. Congress has already sent the message it's a bad idea that they won't go along with, because it is. It would steer money away from construction jobs and highway infrastructure in the immediate time period, and when and if she gets that windfall profit tax, they will just pass the difference along to us, the consumers, like they always do. It's ridiculous and it will never happen. Bush could lower the price right now if he'd open that strategic reserve a little, but he doesn't want to do that. But then that's what we get when we put 2 oil men in the most powerful positions.

All talk, no action. If she was serious about gas tax relief for this summer, she would've introduced a bill reflecting her proposal by now. She hasn't. And she has no serious intention of pushing this as a legislative proposal. Its election year pandering and not a thing more.

simply because there's no way to get the windfall profits tax passed. But, it the spirit of give and take, I'll agree that if she can get the windfall tax bill passed first, and if the proceeds of the tax are earmarked to go to the same ends as the fuel tax, then I'd support the tax holiday.

I think that's going to be a bit of a challenge to accomplish in the next three weeks :-).

As to whether we are in a recession or not: I'll reserve judgement for a few months. We may very well be in one, or we may possibly not be. The quarterly reslts are too close to the wire to call it easily at this point and I don't trust quarterly results until they've been revised a few times. Which economists are you reading who are saying we're definitely not in a recession?

Do you honestly believe she'd get that through congress? She hasn't even proposed the legislation, why not?

Greedy oil companies will just raise the price of gas to cover the tax.

Wouldn't even get through the Senate, let alone ever reach bush. She knows that what she's saying is nothing but hot air for the gullible. It won't work.

to either remove the tax or get the windfall profits tax in. In fact, at the end of last year - they couldn't work the deal to fund a large number of alternative energy initiatives with that same tax - because there were too few Senators to enact it - not to mention it would be vetoed.

It is pandering - pure and simple.

Any kind of tax on big oil. She knows this, and why the people of this country don't know that by now, is beyond me!

They said yesterday that she had previously proposed a windfall profits tax and had proposed using that money to pay for investments in alternative fuels. So she is trying to double-allocate the same revenue and hoping voters would not notice. That's what a neutral observer said yesterday.

Congress can't legislate as fast as the oil companies can blame market forces. That's how it will work out in the end.

asking? Since Reagan repealed the windfall profits tax of 1980, there have been quite a few times that Congress has tried to reinact the tax, and it doesn't pass. Do you think the Repukes are just going to vote for that because Hillary says?

That tax isn't going to pass any time soon, and the loss to the government will be around $9 billion. Do you think we can afford that at this time?

next time you drive over or under a bridge and assume it won't fall on you or beneath you.... try assuming otherwise.

the govt WILL lose money in a much needed dept: repairing infrastructure, you know, roads, bridges, that sort of thing.

sorry, the only one I see lying here is you.

saying the govt will not lose money by elminating a tax is an outright, baldfaced lie. Or else someone who is confused or deluded.

During Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign in New York -
It is "a bad deal for New York and a potential bonanza for the oil companies," Clinton said of her Republican opponent Rick Lazio's plan to repeal 4.3 cents of the gas tax.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/01/clinton-camp-gas-plan-she_n_99643.html

The Gas Tax Holiday: Good Politics, Bad Policy
http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/PressReleases/2008/04-30gastaxholiday.html

Brookings Institute -
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM43_080502_list_gastax.html

will pass in Congress? Slim to none at this point. We need to get a workable majority first.

You have a failure of the predicate: You assume she can pass a windfall profits tax -- this summer?? That stretches even beyond fantasy. There is a chance that could happen in 2009, if we put more dems in Congress. Regardless, how you gonna tax Shell, and BP, and YPF, and Total, and CITGO, etc.? And if you don't, you are putting the United States companies at a competitive disadvantage.

Go assume a can opener.

profits made in the US can get taxed in the US.

Think that can't get shifted? My old firm had 30 lawyers doing nothing but that.

And the rest of my point goes absolutely unanswered because it can't be answered.

She knows it.

It will not happen. Not right now.

So she's making empty promises, and tacking those empty promises onto a really dumb idea to begin with - one that's environmentally unsound, economically unsound, and nothing more than a pander.

You know, Bush and co. attempted, and to some extent, succeeded, in pandering to the American public with the "tax rebates". They disquised the HUGE tax rebates built into our system, and in particular the tax cuts aimed at the very, very wealthy. It's pennies to the middle class, and millions to the few.

This is the same dodge. "Here, peasants, have $30. Remember to vote!"

The entire proposal is absurd.

for ordinary americans.

Two guesses which part passes and which part gets stopped by the corrupt and weak-kneed in Congress. And the first guess doesn't count.

think the tax hit the oil companies will take will be forced on;

YOU!

I don't understand why Clinton supporters wouldn't email her campaign and urge her to drop it. Wouldn't this be the wisest of ideas?

If you don't agree with it, why argue for it.

It is blatent dishonesty to say this will cost the government money.

if the idea was implemented. Now I think we both know it's not going to happen. My point is Clinton would be wise to save herself and drop the idea. Plenty of economists have come out and said it is a bad idea, even Krugman.

it will create a supply issue. A sort of "run on gas stations" if you will. Gas panic if they run out of fuel would be fun wouldn't it? Its an irresponsible but implausible idea at best since she'd never have a chance to pass this legislation.

And for the record, its not really a question of math, its a question of economics. Keep in mind what happens to prices when demand is high and supply is low.

So that's simply not going to happen.

your slide rule' thingy. Get a grip people. Step outside. Breathe.

She has already allocated the funds from windfall oil company profits.

You can't spend the same money twice.

Ready to deceive on day one.

any such legislation today nor does she plan to propose any legislation tomorrow or next week or next month.

If she were sincere she would have the proposed legislation written and would be trying to get it passed NOW!

Show us her legislation, let us read the words to know what the proposed legislation entails and what it will really do.