What a narcissist he is. "Senator Obama reduced your gasoline prices." (Obama is wrong on gas tax.)

May 6, 2008 | Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has repeatedly accused rival Hillary Clinton of "pandering" for advocating a summer gas-tax moratorium, calling it a "classic Washington gimmick" that would do little to help consumers.

......

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, while diverting us from the serious energy reforms we need to undertake; 2) an opportunity for oil companies to raise prices to capture the missing tax increment; 3) an inducement to drivers to drive more, thus leading to more consumption and higher prices down the road; and 4) a drain on highway trust funding, which is sorely needed to repair our crumbling infrastructure.

This is powerful criticism because it resonates with a long-standing talking point against Clinton -- that she is a political phony willing to do anything to get elected.

But in this case, each of Obama's attack lines is either factually incorrect, or based on flawed logic. Could he be attacking Clinton just to deny her any political benefit? That would be as cynical and "old style" as anything Clinton has thrown at Obama lately.

......

While an Illinois state senator, Obama supported a state tax holiday very much like Clinton's proposal, but without the saving mechanism of a windfall profits tax.

CBS News says Obama voted for the temporary lifting of the tax three times in the state Senate. The tax holiday was finally approved during a special session in June of 2000, when Illinois motorists were furious that gas prices had just topped $2 a gallon in Chicago. The moratorium lifted the state's 5 percent sales tax on gasoline through the end of 2000.

Obama told constituents that gasoline prices would drop: "Gas retailers must post on each pump a statement that indicates that the state tax has been suspended and that this temporary elimination of the tax should be reflected in the price per gallon of gas."

During one state Senate floor debate, Obama joked that he wanted signs on gas pumps in his district to say, "Senator Obama reduced your gasoline prices."

snip/

But Obama is wrong. He did not learn this lesson. In fact, the only scientific study done on the pass-through of the tax holiday savings to Illinois consumers (and those in Indiana, as well, whose citizens enjoyed a similar holiday) found that it actually worked to a large extent.

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 suggests that the tax holiday delivered at least 60 percent of the tax savings to motorists.


SOOOO MUCH MORE AT: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/05/06/gas_tax/

I just figured I would save the usual suspects some trouble.

:rofl:

I'm sure it's coming. :hi:

Do you really think this would pass congress? Do you really think that a bill to pay for such a holiday by taxing big oil companies would make it through congress? And last but not least, if by some miracle it did pass, do you really think that Bush would sign such a bill? Please be honest.

Of course.

Can you provide me with a link to the proposed legislation she has written that contains all the details of her plan, to include the special implementation provisions Frost refers to in his last few paragraphs, to include the means to penalize the oil corps if they pass the taxation on to the citizens? Can you provide me the link to the actual legislation she wrote or had written or co-wrote or is just sponsoring that is now pending in the senate, that she has presented for consideration by the senate since May 2, 2008, and can you tell me when she filed her legislation for consideration and how many senators have co-sponsored her proposed legislation and support her plan?

See, you have to actually introduce the legislation to get action on it and you have to actually write the legislation to introduce it and I can't seem to find a link to the legislation. I even checked her official senate website and the news release section, there isn't anything. I can't find the Senate bill number or amendment to any bill presently pending. Could you help me out here and provide me a link to the actual proposed legislation?

And I've never fully understood, can you introduce legislation in the senate if you aren't in DC? Can you do it from the campaign trail?

And in fact, if there's no solid support for it, it may not be.

Nonetheless, I think it's a good issue for Democrats to push in an election year. It's unfortunate the partisanship of the primaries is interfering with it. We should be putting Republicans on the defensive over a windfall profits tax on the oil companies.

written and proposed. Notice the lovely article written by the attorney who has made campaign contributions to Hillary's presidential campaign, the article allegedly refuting economists on the subject, contains specifics which purportedly would make her plan work. Without those specifics in her plan, the plan will not work. So is he giving her clues or just furthering the pandering?

As noted, the republican candidate also supports the gas tax holiday, for hillary's to be different it must be written and proposed with the specific language making it different, not just talked about. As it stands, she and the republican agree. Tells ya something, doesn't it.

You just want to pick a fight.

:spray:

and states cannot pass laws on a a windfall profits tax for national companies.


More over even Clinton's economic advisers like Krugman has said that it is a bad idea.


Obama was for the idea before it was tried and proven not to work.


Hillary is for the idea after it was tried and proven not to work.


Since she cannot repeal the law of supply and demand the reduction in cost will have no impact on the price but will simply increase the oil companies profit.

The study: http://www.nber.org/tmp/65433-w12266.pdf

What the article said: I voted for it, and then six months later we took a look, and consumers had not benefited at all," Obama said. Having learned this hard economics lesson from his Illinois "mistake," Obama now argues that a federal tax holiday also will fail for the same reason -- the oil companies will take it all.

But Obama is wrong. He did not learn this lesson. In fact, the only scientific study done on the pass-through of the tax holiday savings to Illinois consumers (and those in Indiana, as well, whose citizens enjoyed a similar holiday) found that it actually worked to a large extent.

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 suggests that the tax holiday delivered at least 60 percent of the tax savings to motorists.

10 cents...

how many millions/billions were saved by consumers overall?

How .... I can't help it, you ask for it with that kind of commentary ... elitist.

Someone making nineteen thousand a year as an office cleaner with a wife and kids would TAKE that ten cents. Why can't you grasp that?

People who throw money down for crap, like--and I have to say it, because it IS true--overpriced sugary coffee with whipped creme on top--and don't even think that they pay for that coffee the same price that could buy a precious (to a poor family) quart of milk, just do NOT get what it is like for people who live on the margins. They've never put their kid in a snowsuit bought for a buck at the Salvation Army before putting them into BED at night, because they have no heat.

You just don't get it. If the economy continues as it has, you or many of your friends and family might be in the sad situation of learning about it, though.

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Bureau_of_Economic_Research

A December 1, 2002, news story in the New York Times<1> on the National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., of Cambridge, MA, called the institution non-partisan but failed to identify a penny of the $10 million it receives in conservative philanthropic underwriting.

"Reporter David Leonhardt found time to report that the bureau, headed by Martin S. Feldstein, guru to Bush-economics, is the 'nation's premier economic research organization,' but couldn't do a simple Google search to determine where it gets its money.

"But reporter Leonhardt 'does' have some interesting things to say about Harvard University:

"Still, Ec10, as it is known at Harvard, is hardly neutral -- in its readings or its lectures -- and its point of view contributes a good deal to his importance. Over the last two decades, thousands of Harvard undergraduates have received a decidedly anti-tax, free-market-leaning introduction to economics.

"And there's this gem about Feldstein's partisanship and his crappy economic analysis, 'driven' by partisanship:

"For his part, Mr. Feldstein has shown little taste since the 1980's for straying from the Republican Party line. In 1992, he predicted that the Clinton administration's tax increase would stifle economic growth and do little to erase the deficit...In 2001, when President Bush was forming his cabinet, Mr. Feldstein and his wife began a Boston Globe article by writing, 'Paul O'Neill was an inspired choice for secretary of the Treasury.' Mr. Feldstein is also on the board of Eli Lilly, the pharmaceutical company with strong Republican ties.

"And the next time you hear someone refer to Feldstein as from Harvard, remember that, according to Feldstein,

"I have a Harvard office, but I hardly ever use it..."

Between 1985 and 2001, the organization received $9,963,301 in 73 grants from only four foundations:

* John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
* Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
* Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife)
* Smith Richardson Foundation

Strange.

Even though her campaign admits this is just politics and Bill Clinton has been against this sort of gimmick.

EXPERIENCE.


Hillary wants to repeat the mistakes of others... but on a national scale.


Obama supported a tax holiday as a state senator in Illinois. IT FAILED MISERABLY.


Why would Hillary want to repeat that mistake?

before chiming in, but what else is new?

:shrug:

The money quote:

I voted for it, and then six months later we took a look, and consumers had not benefited at all," Obama said. Having learned this hard economics lesson from his Illinois "mistake," Obama now argues that a federal tax holiday also will fail for the same reason -- the oil companies will take it all.

But Obama is wrong. He did not learn this lesson. In fact, the only scientific study done on the pass-through of the tax holiday savings to Illinois consumers (and those in Indiana, as well, whose citizens enjoyed a similar holiday) found that it actually worked to a large extent.

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 suggests that the tax holiday delivered at least 60 percent of the tax savings to motorists.

No economist agrees that it is a good idea.


Give it up

supported her position (by her buddy George) and she couldn't name even one. She decided that all economists are elitist and dismissed all of them because they don't agree with her


Sorry, you are wrong.


Please drop it, you are looking pretty silly right about now.

But you hae to READ THE ARTICLE and the study to realize that.

For most people I'm guessing that would have amounted to, what, five or six bucks over the course of a month?

Many of them are POOR. With kids, sometimes LOTS of kids, who need shoes and food. They live in crappy places and commute to the nice, expensive places to do their jobs. Ten cents a gallon to someone putting ten gallons in their tank is a BUCK. That buck could give them enough gas to get to their SECOND job.

I am amazed at the number of people on this ostensibly "progressive" board that really don't understand the issues of the poor, who often drive old, shitty, gas guzzlers, and who would just LOOOOVE to drive that fancy Prius Hybrid to their janitor job--if someone paid for it for them AND covered the insurance, too--but instead, they're making do with that dented 82 Ford truck, because it cost next to nothing. They pay zip for the ride up front, and their "payment" every month is what they put in the tank and the duct tape and baling wire they use to keep the thing running. These people CHECK the couch cushions after company gets up off their couch and leaves their home, because...ya never know. There could be some change wedged in there.

who HAS a second job and drives a beat-up 1991 Pontiac. I understand these issue very well, from *personal* experience. I also understand that the actual amount of money that anyone would save from this, for the three months that it might be in effect, is going to have zero effect on their long-term situation. THAT is the point here; HRC is proposing something that sounds good but all it does is pander to short-term short-sighted self-interest.

is ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

People who live hand to mouth will take whatever they can get. The future is too daunting, just get through the week or the month.

And the fact that someone gives enough of a shit to take notice of the fact that some people are STRUGGLING just to get by is an important point that is bigger than the extra half gallon of milk they might be able to buy with the savings. It speaks to being ATTENTIVE to that segment of the population, and like it or not, as a result of Bush's policies, that segment is getting BIGGER every day.

If you can't see the "big picture" there, I can't help you. There are several things happening with this "brief relief" concept. First, HRC is speaking to those working poor, or right-on-the-border of being working poor. Second, she is saying that she's going to hold fatcats accountable, that some profit IS unreasonable, and corporations that benefit had better wrap their heads around GIVING BACK a little.

Now, framed correctly, what Senator in their right mind who cares about keeping their seat wants to have "Fucked the little guy, refused to make the profiteers pony up their share" as a talking point against them when they stand for reelection?

The fact that McCain wants this too is actually good. Some segments on his team will be pushed to go along, at least with the "brief relief" bit. McCain doesn't want to make the oil companies pay, though. Clinton does--and it will be an interesting trick to see who wins that battle, if anyone--but the important thing is that the ISSUE is being discussed.

With the right framing, it can be used to paint the GOP as heartless bastards in bed with the oil companies. And that's a GOOD THING to have as a talking point come November. Something, for a change, instead of the usual "family values" type bullshit, that will actually make a real DIFFERENCE to the non-latte crowd is actually getting an airing. Force people to stand and say how they feel--are the oil companies making too much profit, or not? Shouldn't they "give back" to a country that has made them so stinking rich?

That's news. That's important. It's a winning argument. If you look down the road towards NOVEMBER, at any rate.

Do you really have to have this explained to you?

The state lost $0.10 per gallon in revenue in order to give the public $0.06 per gallon in cost.

The gasoline companies made an additional $0.04 per gallon in revenue. Their profits went up, therefore the public lost on the deal.

It is exactly the same as Bush borrowing 5 trillion dollars in order to give us back 3 trillion in tax cuts! It won't ever work!

How do you justify your assertion that these kinds of schemes WORK? Are you that easily bamboozled? Sure you are!

What's your malfunction?

He learned from that mistake.


Hillary is hell-bent on REPEATING IT.

equals higher prices. Would you rather pay 3% less for 3 months if you had to pay more the rest of the year?

Example: $4.00 gas goes down 3%= $3.88 gas for June, July August, then goes up 4% in September= $4.04 cents a gallon rest of the year.

It doesn't do anything.

Especially the second page of the article.

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%."

So the net 1% is less than what consumers would have paid otherwise.

Edit: changed with to without in post title.

And the author cherrypicks the study he quotes. Place that up against the almost unanimous rejection by every major economist in the country of the Hillary/McCain "tax holiday," and there's really very little left to say.

It's a bad plan, and there's nothing narcissistic about Obama's saying so.

ABSTRACT
There are surprisingly few estimates of the effect of sales taxes on retail prices, especially at the firm
level. Further, along both sides of a state border, a change in one state’s sales tax can shed light on
the nature of competition, as a subset of firms effectively experiences a change in its marginal cost.
This paper considers the suspension, and subsequent reinstatement, of the 5% gasoline sales tax in
Illinois and Indiana following a temporary price spike in the spring of 2000. Earlier laws set the
timing of the reinstatements, providing plausibly exogenous changes in the tax rates. Using a unique
dataset of daily, gas station-level data, retail gas prices are found to drop by 3% following the
suspension, and increase by 4% following the reinstatements. After linking the stations to driving
distance data, some evidence suggests that the tax increases are associated with higher prices up to
an hour’s drive into neighboring states.

followed by a four percent increase, a good thing.

Complete study:

http://tisiphone.mit.edu/RePEc/mee/wpaper/2005-017.pdf

$4.00 gas with 5% of that amount (20 cents) being paid to govt as tax (leaving $3.80 for gas companies, excluding other taxes). Now you suspend the five percent tax and the price only drops 3% (12 cents) -- to $3.88. The result, 12 cents in the pockets of the consumer and 8 more cents in the pockets of the gas companies/stations. Good deal for them. They actually end up making out almost as well as the consumer. And of course those lost tax dollars have to be made up somehwere and when they are made up, the consumer will pay them.

How is this good? Particularly since the study indicates that when the tax is reinstated, the price goes up more than the amount it dropped.

Obama joked that he wanted signs on gas pumps in his district to say, "Senator Obama reduced your gasoline prices."

of course, it's only a sin when Clinton does it. There's some fine meat here, too!

Basically, it is absurd to say that a summer-long price drop of this tiny magnitude will have any long-term effect at all. A meta-study by Molly Espey of 101 different economic studies, published in Energy Journal, found that in the short run (defined as one year or less), the average price elasticity of demand for gasoline is only -0.26. That is, a 10 percent hike in the price of gasoline lowers quantity demanded by 2.6 percent. As long as the price stimulus is small and short-lived, there is little if any long-term effect. And most experts agree that in order to actually curtail demand through taxes, it would take a much higher tax than is politically feasible.

Not one of the three major presidential candidates is calling for a $2 or $3 a gallon tax increase. The better long-term approach -- given the lack of political spine by any U.S. politician on this subject -- is higher efficiency standards, and big-time investment into transportation alternatives. Both Obama and Clinton are pushing these.

Finally, Obama says the gas tax holiday would cost thousands of construction jobs and lead to crumbling roadways and bridges. 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.

Many -- including Clinton backer and economist Paul Krugman -- have questioned whether Clinton's proposed windfall profits tax would work: "In one pocket, out the other. So it's pointless, not evil, " says Krugman. "But it is pointless, and disappointing."

But under Clinton's plan, if properly implemented, any additional profit realized by an oil company by passing on the cost of the windfall profits tax to customers would also be subject to the tax. This means a dollar passed through to consumers to offset the tax would appear as profit ... and be taxed.

Good stuff!

I've always admired your snark ability, even when aimed at me.

:)

I don't remember aiming any snark in your direction. (That's not saying I've never done it. I just don't remember.)

like the "window of joy." :rofl:

At least, I thought we did. :shrug:

Ancient history, if we did.

Brilliant fucking plan, Hillary & McLoon. I'm sure the folks in Minneapolis will agree.....

It's astounding how many non-readers we apparently have, here! Either that, or they'e got difficulty understanding what they read.

The speed at which the posts went up, too--and I really doubt we've got THAT MANY Evelyn Wood Speed Readers amongst us, eh?

This is a FEDERAL tax that goes towards some KEY infrastructure projects - WHO CARES WHAT THE ENGINEERS OR ECONOMISTS THINK? Let the damn things fall!! I need my $30!

:cry:

You can't make an argument for Hillary these days without putting your foot in your mouth.

Here is an article that cites Doyle, Jr. he's a bit more honest and lukewarm about it than your shill article suggests.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-gastax2-2008may02,0,135723.story

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

So much for Frost's interpretation of the study. :rofl:

telling economists they don't know what they are talking about, whodathunk?

Oh, and he has contributed to Hillary's campaign.

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?zip=94705&last=Frost&first=George

:eyes:

I thought the response he made about his previous mistake was refreshingly honest, but I'm just a cultist and can't be expected to think reasonably anymore.

I also think you can do better than to call him a narcissist when he's just joking, but you're a Clintonista and can't be expected to be anything but despicable.

"narcissist"

LOL that's fucking rich anyone with half a fucking brain knows

who the "narcissist" is in this equation.

Queen Hillary will NOT BE CORONATED

Believe it!!!

Also:

1) She can't deliver it. Congress already told her it was bullshit, and Junior isn't going sign ANYTHING regarding windfall taxes which, by the way, she herself voted against the last four times it came up for a vote.

2) She has spent this mythical windfall tax twice; she already spent it in her own plan for alternative energy.

The truth is it would take money out of the already woefully underfunded Highway Fund, you know, the money used to fix the already crumbling roads and infrastructure PLUS it will cause the loss of an estimated 300,000 jobs (conservative estimate by the, well, you know elitist economists).

3) She can't stop Big Oil from pocketing the small change and raising prices on consumers to make up the difference.

4) She has called Obama and just about every economist "elitists" for telling the truth about this. Hmmmmm. She's disregarding sound advice. Who does that sound like?

5) This proposal has been deemed the worst policy position of the campaign and she has erroneously tied her wagon to it and is defending it.

Hillary is preying on stupid people. I never thought someone who is allegedly a Democrat would stoop as low as a Republican and purposely deceive people fishing for votes.

That's pandering any way you slice it.

including 5 since 2000. Why are you still trying to push this meme? EVERYBODY knows Hillary is wrong on this

You will shop until you will find something that you think fits into your side and then you clip it and print it.

You have used anarchists who want to destroy the government and hate Hillary but if you can find some quote against Obama then you will use it.

Of course most of the lemmings will not click through and see the fraud you put out.

1) The Salon article admits that it will not work unless elaborate legal mechanisms are also administered requiring special enforcement features that cannot be passed for this summer.

2) The Salon article also states

"Many -- including Clinton backer and economist Paul Krugman -- have questioned whether Clinton's proposed windfall profits tax would work: "In one pocket, out the other. So it's pointless, not evil, " says Krugman. "But it is pointless, and disappointing."

3) The paper it sites is an academic paper with highly sophisticated economic models that include factoring cross border purchases, changes in inventories and the sort. Its conclusions require a peer review process that would test it by trained economists. Hundreds of economists have joined in condemning the silly McCain/Clinton proposal.

What the paper does state as a fact is that substantial revenue is lost to the state

quote
When gasoline prices spike, governments are under some pressure to respond to
the volatility by cutting taxes. Illinois estimates that the state lost $157 million in tax
revenue , while Indiana estimates a loss of $46 million . One
question is how much of a reduction in retail prices did the tax suspension buy
unquote


So we have a known loss versus what benefit? First the paper establishes that there is "no long term effect"

"Third, while the short-run nature of the policy change does not inform long-run
effects"

4) And as you state according to their model - which is presented without peer review, they estimate that it would reduce prices by only 60% so that an 18 cent reduction would only result in a 10.8 cent reduction with the other 7.2 cents going where? To the oil company. This I would call a failure - and there maybe other technical faults in the modeling. Did they give enough values to the cross border purchase of gas by people from Indiana?

5) The more telling problem is your methodology. It reeks of the same intellectual dishonesty of the Bush's, Rather than use peer review scientific opinion they go 'opinion shopping'. They hire experts from the oil company to edit the papers from government experts in climate change. Your commitment to epistemological honesty is so corrupted that you would take any garbage from any source if you thought you could fit it into a matrix that somehow impugns the character of Senator Obama. It is a pathetic demonstration of a bankrupt intellectual framework that has lost all self respect and cares only for the advancing of ones team without any other consideration. It is what enables you to quote anarchists to assail Obama, while the same anarchists despise Hillary.

6) And if your corrupted epistemology was not sufficient you always add the strangest psychological terms to Senator Obama that reveal more about you than anything else. Senator Obama in your mind doesn't leave a news conference he leaves in a 'paranoid' walk. Senator Obama cannot give an opinion on a failed gas tax holiday (even the most optimistic reading of your own source gives it only a 60% passing grade - most consider 60% an F but for you if Hillary gets 60% it must be an 'A') then you characterize it as narcissistic. In what morass of bitterness do you dwell in that calling this charade of pandering santorum that originated with John McCain and has been panned by hundreds of economists that has zero chance of passing,an act of narcissism?

The state tax relief Obama voted on was a much better deal for consumers since it was a relief of the state tax which actually scales when prices go higher - meaning the higher the price the higher the savings. The federal "relief" proposed by Senator Clinton would offer a flat $.18 per gallon, non-scaling which would be paid by the oil companies, not removed at the pump. Senator Clinton has not explained how she would enforce this payment, not has she shed any light on how her plan - which saves less money than the Illinois plan did, will somehow magically be more successful than the Illinois plan.

It's pandering. Anything for your girl tho right?

We'll know tomorrow....

The Obama campaign KNOWS they are right on this issue, more importantly that they are telling the truth about it. 200 top economists agree. Even Paul Krugman.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Strange . . . that 33 cent a day gas tax savings plan is hilarious.

supposed to be on ignore? I guess you are happy people can see your drivel....

:rofl:








GOBAMA!

Lecture

On a night like this one, NOT A SINGLE PERSON is going to read 500 words to find out what your point is.

Get your points down to three or four sentences, then go back to reading and learning why you can't make your case for Hillary with tripe like this.

When the ignore function isn't working, I always get a laugh out of your threads. The most unintentionally funny threads of all. Narcissism has a name, and that name is Hillary.