digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

200 Economists Denounce Clinton/McCain Gas Tax Plan

bloomberg.com — That Clinton would engage in this type of pure political pandering is not surprising. It ’s just another last-ditch effort that exemplifies the kind of same old Washington gamesmanship that we need to change. This may well be the most irresponsible policy idea of the year. How stupid do they think we are?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • canewediggit, on 05/07/2008, -5/+96damn nobel prize winning elitists. i don't listen to my doctor either, he's such an elitist with his golf club membership and his mercedes. just because he spent years in medical school and has decades of experience in the field, it feels so much better when i eat ***** fast food instead of the fruits and vegetables he keeps recommending.
    • SqueakyWheel, on 05/07/2008, -10/+3Rivlin said in an interview today. ``If anything, we need higher gas taxes.'' Wow they smart or AGW worshippers
  • neognostic, on 05/07/2008, -2/+51I have the mental image of HRC with her fingers in her ears......lalalalalalalala. McCain just turns down his hearing aides.
    • actorboy, on 05/07/2008, -0/+16Actually, I have an image of her fingers in the ears of people voting for her.
  • ssn697, on 05/07/2008, -1/+42The oil companies LOVE the plan.
    • Bilabrin, on 05/07/2008, -0/+7Yeah, It's like Obama said on Meet the Prick this Sunday, "we tried this in Illinois and the oil companies raised prices to take advantage of the tax cut "
  • NoDrama, on 05/07/2008, -1/+13It was such obvious pandering I'm not sure this is even a story, but since it's an election issue I suppose it bears getting the word out. It was pretty telling when Senator Clinton herself couldn't name one economist who favored the plan - maybe they consulted Kantor or Rove while formulating it.
  • voxtarri, on 05/07/2008, -24/+9Ron Paul 08!
    • FairDinkumMate, on 05/07/2008, -6/+3Did anyone else notice Huckabee got more of the vote in Tuesday's primaries than Paul!!! Oh yeah - Ron Paul '08 my ass
  • zenithmbr, on 05/07/2008, -16/+7buried because this it the 10,000th article i've seen about this stupid gas tax plan
    • wild, on 05/07/2008, -2/+11I know. Bury the important issues, pump up the fluff. Its the American way!
  • kprooney, on 05/07/2008, -17/+4and once again the same article is dugg up twice cause its anti-Clinton. This is spam sir
  • GeorgeStone2, on 05/07/2008, -2/+8"How stupid do they think we are?"

    Well that idea is just about stupid enough to win them the election.
  • SqueakyWheel, on 05/07/2008, -10/+1Its a good idea for truckers. Obama lovers these econs are.
  • ramaboo, on 05/07/2008, -3/+6How about instead a three month moratorium on the gas tax we have a moratorium on oil company profits?
  • jonesin, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2These kinds of commentaries would probably gain more traction if the people weren't using words like "exemplifies".
  • FairDinkumMate, on 05/07/2008, -2/+34How about they take the $9 billion it'd cost & offer a $5,000 rebate to the first 1.8 million people that buy fuel efficient vehicles. It'd have a much larger long term impact on the price of gas!
    • jezsik, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3Very interesting approach!
    • HeyArnold, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1dugg^10
    • cbittle, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4... I see what you did there. You made sense! Dugg.
    • MisterFreeze, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3I agree with you, but I think it would be political suicide to offer incentives to U.S. consumers to buy Japanese cars.
      • FairDinkumMate, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3Hadn't thought of that - I keep forgetting how far behind the curve US carmakers are!!!
        I don't think the WTO rules would allow it to be offered for US made cars only. I guess they'd just have to set a MPG target & offer the incentive for ANY car that beats it, if the local manufacturer's don't make the grade, maybe it'd light a fire under their collective arses to sort it out.
    • IIArchonII, on 05/08/2008, -2/+0Sorry to be a Negative Nancy but Central Economic Planning is hard work

      5,000 Dollars is a lot of money, and there are lots of cheap small cars that are fuel efficient... therefore someone like me, who doesn't own a car, would buy one(almost for free) and therefore raise demand on gas prices.

      • FairDinkumMate, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2LOGIC - Please apply some. Of course $5,000(a quick figure, the idea may work better with a higher/lower figure in reality!) rebate would encourage SOME increased demand from those that don't currently have vehicles. But every SUV or other high MPG owner that took this up would offset one of those(YOU!). If you think that there are more non-car owners than high MPG owners that would take this up you're kidding yourself(Base this on the fact that in 2003 there was 1 car per 1.2 people in the US & a lot of those .2 live in places like NYC where people won't buy cars regardless of price).
        In 2004 almost 40% of registered vehicles in the US were SUV's or pick-up trucks. A lot of these are necessary for people to do their jobs(tradesmen, etc) or because people live in areas without serviced roads but the vast majority are unneccesary & ANY incentive to reduce their usage(& therefore consumption) would be a fantastic thing for gas prices & environmental pollution.
        I wasn't intending for my quick thought to be the actual policy!
  • SqueakyWheel, on 05/07/2008, -17/+5How about no more taxes on any product
    • Disfnord, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3Sure, if you don't mind building your own roads, fighting your own fires, teaching your kids at home, fighting crime yourself, etc.
  • trixterIreland, on 05/07/2008, -10/+3I would be more interested in their affiliations and the reasons for which they are doing this.

    One person at google for example decided to attack the plan, saying instead (not in addition but instead) we need to do high speed trains (which will take years to do anything productive with), busses etc. And that he is an obama supporter, and his entire motiviation for attacking the plan was because hillary attacked obama - uhh that is called politics.

    Believe it or not some "experts" are only speaking out to further their personal agenda and arent always speaking out because of their expertise. I am not saying that is going on here, I am however saying that I would like to know a bit more about the backgrounds of these 200 people so that I can decide for myself (I am sick of news paper reporters trying to decide for me) if that is the case.

    I can get a list of 400 economists (isnt that a job title and not a qualification?) and even potentially some nobel prize winners who would say that lowering taxes does help put money into the economy which does help to create jobs. Why in that context I could probably get many of the same 200 that are on this list to say that (because it really is true in most situations).

    I personally havent read either plan, although hillarys appears to be to repeal parts of the bill clinton tax hike (largest in history first year he was elected and did include a gas tax hike) for 3 months. I think that mccains was similar but not identical in many ways.
    • Loser4Now, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1[I am however saying that I would like to know a bit more about the backgrounds of these 200 people so that I can decide for myself (I am sick of news paper reporters trying to decide for me)]

      Wait, so you're sick of news paper reporters trying to decide for you, yet you want them to tell you the background of the 200 you disagree with? Well, they do just that FTFA:
      "Columbia University economist Joseph Stiglitz, former Congressional Budget Office Director Alice Rivlin and 2007 Nobel winner Roger Myerson are among those who signed the letter calling proposals to temporarily lift the tax a bad idea. Another is Richard Schmalensee of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who was member of President George H.W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers."

      If you want to learn more, stop bitching and go find out more.
  • Hawk2007, on 05/07/2008, -4/+8No love for RP on digg anymore? RP told Neil Cavuto that a moratorium on the tax would probably be a good thing and we could cut money elsewhere in the government to fund this lost tax.
  • sloppychris, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2So where's the list?
  • IslandDog, on 05/07/2008, -5/+1You can pay for the tax cut by eliminating all the pork spending on highway projects.
  • themisanthrope, on 05/07/2008, -4/+5Maybe there's future for Hillary at Chrysler. They're both short-sighted and reckless with regard to the "gas crisis." Hopefully the majority of Americans aren't stupid enough to buy into either's b. s.
  • mlevinq, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2I calculated approximately how much money I would save from this proposed lifting of the federal gas tax: a whopping $24. Granted, I drive a small, fuel efficient car (Honda Civic) and I don't drive much, but still, $24 is small potatoes. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders' plan is a bit better than Clinton's and McCain's. Sanders is proposing a hiatus on the federal gas tax that would last six months (as opposed to just over the summer) and instead of the money to fund the hiatus coming out the transportation department's budget, it would come from a windfall tax. Guess who'd be paying the windfall tax? The big oil companies who are raking in the profits right now. That sounds like a much better plan to me. Thoughts?
    • auxplage, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Ok, so they pay the taxes. Guess what? The can just raise the price of fuel even more so that we pay for it still. Taxing corporations makes no sense unless there is no sales tax at all.
    • LaughingDjinn, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2There is still the basic problem with the tax holiday in that it artificially creates a lower price which will not curb consumption and thus demand. So the demand will rise as the price remains constant until the end of the "Holiday" when the prices jump to higher than it would have been with just "normal" growth. In the long run high prices right now are a good thing, they will encourage/force people to consume less which will hopefully drive out all the speculators who are driving prices so high (after real estate bubble burst investors dumping their money into oil futures which is why huge recent jumps without *real* supply/demand changes) then once the speculators are out the prices will stabilize, they won't be low but they won't be $5/$6 a gallon either.
    • moulin1, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I calculated it too. It's $0. The gas station (most owned by oil cos) pays the tax not you.
  • CaptainShaun, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3Just because economists see and point out the flaws in the gas tax "holiday" supported by other candidates does not at all mean that economists in general favour the overall (economic) platform of Barack Obama.
  • worldtechguy, on 05/07/2008, -8/+2If an economist hates it, especially a socialist one, I love it. But this is a prime example of how the government screams like a stuck pig (a very appropriate simile) if there is talk of decreasing taxes even a tiny little bit. Notice how when these vermin decide they need to fund some dopey project in their districts, they happily raise taxes on the people???
  • radiantstorm, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3We really are just children to these reptiles.
    • silentboom, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2you got it right man, we are their mules for the whipping.
    • blagoaw, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1fish in a barrel..
  • scorched03, on 05/07/2008, -5/+0can we just donate .84 cents repeatedly to mccain, or to HRC's funds?
    i think that'd be a strong disapproval statement

    https://www.johnmccain.com/Contribute/ContributeB. ...
  • queenbee93, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Hillary turned me off when, before the election even started she said she would give money to the voters and then later, changed that to financing the college education of our newborns. Like stacking questions and questioners in Iowa, the Clinton camp engages in insulting tactics that probably cross the line. It was vote buying on a massive scale when she promised to spend OUR money on us, if she got elected.

    Of course the Superdelegate votes are up for sell. What does everyone think all those appointments and job offers are that come their way after a successful election?

    As for this being news--it ain't. The votes were always up for sale and the bargaining is always done in those backrooms. Super Delegates are nothing more than the latest trick to overturn the will of the people. SD vote once for a personal vote, then they get these manufactured votes. For the good of the party? Or for the good of themselves? Either way--"one man, one vote" has no meaning in the Democratic party--when it comes to Superdelegates. They have 2 votes per person, with one vote counting for thousands. Corrupt as hell and this, only started after the Dems got stuck with Jimmy Carter, then hamstringed his Presidency by not working with him.

    They sought to teach the Dem majority a lesson--pick who THEY want in office or else. But this only started in 1980--hardly sacrosanct or democratic.
  • Nickdotnet, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3Pish Posh - why would we listen to economists on the economy.....
  • silentboom, on 05/07/2008, -1/+5These candidates got the idea from Ron Paul, but he also said that we would have to get rid of some government to pay for it. He also said if we reduced the government back to the size it was in 1991 which was still huge, we could do away with the income tax.
  • exronin, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3"I'm not going to put my lot in with economists"
  • iloveliberals, on 05/07/2008, -6/+0Cutting taxes is irresponsible....if anything, we need to give the government MORE of our wages. In fact, we should surrender all of our money to the government, and ask...no, BEG...that they put us on an allowance. They could spend whatever is left over, and if that's not enough, they could borrow more money from Japan and China.
    • jzuska, on 05/07/2008, -3/+1BOOOOOO. I will NEVER vote for anyone who proposed to increase taxes on ANY group. There is 0 reason to increase a single tax in this country. Everyone is FAR over taxed. This comment is irresponsible.
  • alphonseragusa, on 05/07/2008, -3/+3Two quick points:
    Anyone who has an issue with oil companies making a profit is a total douchbag. Microsoft has bigger profit MARGINS than big oil. Why don't the mainstream shill candidate go after them? Oh that's right - they care about getting elected, not you.
    Second, for those who are too poor to own a car and say "drive less" and other such drivel, are you aware that every ***ing thing you buy is shipped in trucks, which run on deisel? Guess what idiot - when they have to spend twice as much on gas, then that pair of sneakers went from $75 to $85. That box of cereal went from $3 to $4.50. Supply and demand does not work with utilities. When fresh water becomes more expensive then the **** will really hit the fan.
    • pkonink, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3Two quick points:
      The oil companies aren't turning profits - they are turning RECORD profits*, meaning they have never made as much money as they are making nowadays. Also, the last I heard if you don't like MS you can go Apple, linux, or a few other OSes. And yes, there is also Open Office which has the same functionality as MS Office and Google Docs which is almost there. What happens if you don't want to buy oil? Fuel your car with vodka? Heat your home by burning cow patties?
      Second, why not just offer breaks and incentives for businesses that rely on oil for transportation and production (farming, hello?) - why must it be for Joe Sixpack and his three dirtbikes, cabin cruiser, riding lawnmower and Dodge hemi?
      One more for the road - what's stopping the oil companies from raising their prices to effectively nullify any savings a tax cut might produce?
      *http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/20 ...
  • moulin1, on 05/07/2008, -1/+4Roads aren't free. They cost money to build and maintain. You can pay for them with a gas tax or you can pay for them with tollbooths. If you are against a gas tax you are pro-toll.
  • Rolex24, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2I don't agree with the holiday idea, if it means taking money out of infrastructure budgets, however, the reality is that the government makes more on a gallon of gas than the oil companies do (about four times as much). The oil companies only make 7-9 cents on a gallon.

    The Federal Government tax on a gallon of gas is 18.4 cents, and then you add the state tax of anywhere from 15 to 30 cents per gallon...well, you get my point. The oil companies are NOT making a killing on gas prices like the media would lead you to believe, but the government is! And don't give me that crap about record profits. Yes, their profits are up, but not their profit margins. Oil is a commodity, like gold. The price is set by the market. Yet you don't see people ranting about evil jewelry stores because the price of gold has skyrocketed.

    The reasons gasoline cost so much:
    1. Speculation has increased. (people are buying more oil futures for investment purposes)
    2. The dollar is weak and getting weaker. (Even if the prices were the same as they were 5 years ago..we can't buy as much oil with a dollar as we used to)
    3. Each state has a different standard on what must be added to their gas for air quality reasons. So companies have to make different grades for different states because they can't sell the same gas to everyone)
    4. We haven't increased our refining capacity in many years.
    5. World demand has increased (China / India) (US consumption has actually decreased)
    6. OPEC is a cartel that collectively controls most oil production. They have not significantly raised production outputs in some time.

    So basically....supply has stayed steady, our refining capacity has stayed steady, world demand has increased, oil's investment opportunity increased, our purchasing power has decreased, our refining restrictions have gotten stricter. It has little to do with the greed of oil companies.



    Source(s):
    http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes....
    http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1...
  • primus101, on 05/07/2008, -4/+2LOL another bias article trying to back the Obama campaign...God I ***** hate digg. Look the best plan is ron paul's don't get rid of it for the summer get rid of it forever...Smaller Government not ***** communism like Obama, Hillary, and McCain want.
  • jzuska, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2What about the black guy asking for my change?
  • winampman2, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4"How stupid do they think we are?"
    Really stupid. Just watch the Hillary supporters shout and cheer when she tells them she supports a gas tax holiday because she "cares" about them.
  • PawnsOfJoshua, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0This only indicates that McCain and Clinton have no idea of the value of a dollar in lower income society. Anyone who actually struggles to pay bills knows that $30 every week for the entire term of the next president *might* be enough to start making an impact. What is staggering to me is how many American citizens are actually dumb enough to fall for a ploy like this.
  • brightshadow525, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I hope you know that this does not make Obama any better...
  • RobotLeAwesome, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0If Hillary of McCain were elected I'd like the 30$ because I'll really need it at that point.

  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.