Ever wonder why Third World countries continual get despots for leaders - ask Hillary
 

One of the main arguments made that Third World countries, such as in Africa, continue to remain behind the door in relation to their First World cousins, is that to be a political winner in any one of these countries , you must appeal to the lowest common denominator within the electorate. It does not matter how elequent your speeches are, how well rounded your arguments are, how well thought out your foreign, economic or health policies are - if the jackass with a pea brain is your opponent and he or she says something like, "Vote for me and I will cut the price of bread in half" or "vote for me and I will give you a new tractor to plough your lands", you are toast.

This is what Hillary is doing in NC and Indiana with her holiday gas tax cut. She has seen (and polls have shown) that her base is at the lower end of the educational scale. In fact one blogger I read put it this way, Hillary does not need to find accomodation for her helpers from neighbouring states - they just drive their homes in.

If you can pander to the electorate with a relief of $30 over a 3 month break on gas tax to the average consumer then that is no different to how they play the political game in Third World countries. If, on the other hand, a relief of $30 is a big, big, concern to your average American then all I can say, is that the USA is in bigger economic s**t than we, who are on the outside looking in, ever thought.

"It's the dumbest idea I've heard in a long time" - michael bloomberg


I expect this kind of thing from John McCain, the rest of his economic policy is at kindergarten level, so why should this be any different?
Clinton on the other hand knows exactly how stupid this idea is, but she's running with it anyway. It's an insult to any half-brained voter. So it will go well for her.

Isn't McCain saying the same thing? Could have sworn he was.

Yes, here it is. So whats the diff?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/...ef=mpstoryview

The party? ;)

Lowering everyday Americans gas price by 20 cents a gallon when people traditionaly take vacations and actually spends money is a bad idea because why?

Because it won't lower the price by 20 cents.

Not even by 18 cents, which is the actual tax level.

We'll see, it's a simple matter to note the price per gallon before and after.

http://www.opentravelinfo.com/files/..._gas_price.jpg

Ok so what state do you live in? I live in California.

In california it is 18 cents federal and another 18 cents state then you add sales tax which adds about 2 cents to it and bing da boom 20 cents.


http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/margins/index.html

So I ask the question again.

Lowering everyday Americans gas price by 20 cents a gallon when people traditionaly take vacations and actually spends money is a bad idea because why?

Hello,
apart from that ... are you really sure Hillary or Obama are the best choice for the head of the US ? And was it Bush's charismatic speeches that made him president, or his professional skills. How do you become president of the United States ?
This is not even meant as a critic, e.g. in Germany i admit it is a general lack of knowledge along with luck and servility. If you by chance are a educated physicist, as Ms Merkel is, you also have to add blindness regarding corruptness, industry and its leaders. But anyone who wants real power will probably not end up as a public person like a politician :lol:

Sorry :shifty:

Greetings,
Catfish

Just removing the $0.18 federal taxes on gasoline won't automatically lower the cost of Gas.

Where it is mandated that if the federal tax on gas is removed that this will result in the cost of a gallon of gas to be lowered by $0.18? This is an assumption and not a logical one at that.

The oil companies could just immediately raise their selling price by $0.18 as it is their product and they can sell it at what ever price the market will bear. They probably won't raise it the full $0.18 but increase it a dime? Why not? Then when the federal tax holiday of over our gas prices will go up again. This time it will be on top of the additional $0.10 profit (or what ever the oil companies think they can get away with).

Or

The oil companies will keep their prices the same but the distribution station owners will raise their prices (after all, they can sell the gas at what ever price they wish). If all the distributors agree amongst themselves to help themselves to the "extra" profit, what can we do about it?

This is the flaw with such political ideas. If the federal government lowers taxes why would this automatically mean that companies will not raise their price? Because they are nice people? They are not. Oil companies are in business for business. profit is profit and more profit is what is desired.

If my customer is used to paying $3.30 per gallon + $0.18 tax and the $0.18 tax is eliminated, why would I keep my product at $3.30. Clearly there was a market for $3.48 right? If the government is nice enough not to take more of my customer's money, why would I not step in and take it for them? Profit is profit. It is not like people won't buy my gas at $3.49 as they already are! If the government does not want the usual $0.18 why wouldn't I take it?

If you were an oil company, would you pass up on an extra profit on your product?

It would be great if the oil companies were nice guys interested in the best for society. But they aint. They are in business to make a profit. Normal economic customs call for earning the most profit the market can bear.

Unless there is some way to mandate that the oil companies will indeed keep their prices the same, these political solutions may not have the results they intended (other than convince gullible people to vote for them)

Seems like the only ones in favor of the gas tax rollback are those who would benefit from it. Europeans and other foreigners do not approve.

Aww...

Not my understanding. Apart from every single economic expert I have read comment on it through to Nancy Pelosi, Gov of NY, Obama, et al are against it. Even the majority of voters it would seem.

"At the same time, an overwhelming majority of voters said candidates calling for the suspension of the federal gasoline tax this summer were acting to help themselves politically, rather than to help ordinary Americans. Mr. Obama’s rival for the Democratic nomination, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, has made the suspension of the gas tax a centerpiece of her campaign in recent days.
In the survey, taken in the days leading up to the primaries on Tuesday in Indiana and North Carolina, Americans were divided over the merits of the gasoline-tax suspension, which has also been backed by the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, and condemned by Mr. Obama as political gimmickry."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/us...html?th&emc=th

And let's not think about the people who are in the road maintenance industry. Less road tax means less road improvement work and contractors start letting people go.

Every action has a reaction. There are no "quick" fixes... unless you are trying to buy votes from stupid people.

Hillary appeared on "This Week" and was asked to name just one economist who supported her gas tax holiday. Of course she could not, and then when confronted with the fact that economists were of the opinion that her plan was economically unsound her response was: "I'm not going to put my lot in with economists".

Is this not the same attitude Bush displayed prior to invading Iraq - ignoring all available advice that cautioned going to war?

Can the USA really afford to have another egotist in the White House?

Its funny you say that von, cos if hillary wins the democratic nomination, we won't have to worry about it!:D

in all seriousness though, she's the worst of a mediocre-at-best bunch.