digg

Join DiggAbout

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

More Than 200 Economists Denounce Clinton, McCain Gas plan

bloomberg.com — More than 200 economists, including four Nobel prize winners, signed a petition rejecting proposals by presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John McCain to offer a gas-tax holiday.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • AtHomeBoy2000, on 05/05/2008, -4/+108They are all wrong. Clinton's Shell Oil Lobbyist friend says this is a great idea!
    • jabberwolf, on 05/06/2008, -12/+5Yes they are all wrong, and hmm who are they hired by?

      Notice how Exxon and Chevron seem to agree with Obama and that these economists that have NO MODELS TO GO ON when gasoline reaches its point of elasticity. Again the gas tax would NOT change the personal pocket book of everyday people, the advantage would be with diesel and the huge savings truckers and interstate commerce would gain.

      These increases are being directly and IMMEDIATELY passed on to the consumer, with most goods and especially perishable goods (that's why you see an immediate spike in food prices and would see an immediate drop if the summer tax break was to be implemented). It wouldnt solve the gas problem, but it would help with an ECONOMICS BOOST. People are NOT spending extra on food because they are saving most of it for gas and sales of consumer products are dropping fast~!!

      But Obama is playing politics and saying that it would do nothing for gas prices. DUH !! That's not the point of the tax break. But Obamatards will continue to look at his finger as he points the other direction, most sheep tend not to think for themselves.

      Also it would put the windfall tax against the oil companies which should not complain and when the windfall tax is taken away, there will be the subject left on the plate.... why are we giving subsidies to the TAX companies? That YES, they should not pay for the OIL TAX but they should not get subsidies EITHER!
      • Lazydriver, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Uhm, in case ye haven't noticed, it's being pimped to the average consumer. BTW, on a similar matter: We really need to tax the oil companies more, considering they're making RECORD PROFITS.
        • lgm1213, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1And thats where Clinton's Windfall Tax plan comes in
        • SilverBlade2k, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Taxing the oil companies more wouldn't do much either....the cost would be passed onto the consumer either way..
          • mOdQuArK, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Just put a cap on the max amount of profit they're allowed to make, then it won't be worth it for them to pass the cost onto the consumer. (If they try to do it punitively, then make sure that the initial taxes are taken from the salaries of the executives.)
          • Badandy127, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Welcome to Soviety Russia, comrade mOdQuArK.
      • DudeInAustin, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Uh, we already tried this once before and it was a disaster. The Jimmy Carter era (our national nightmare) experimented with this and it went over so well (chuckle, chuckle) that it was repealed years before it was supposed to expire.

        it ranks right up there with the infamous 'luxury tax" that killed the U.S. boat-making business and cost more in unemployment than it took in in revenue.

        Folks, there is nothing new here to those of us in our late 40's. We have heard it all before...
    • jabberwolf, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Correction: why are we giving subsidies to the TAX companies? = why are we giving subsidies to the OIL companies?
      • DudeInAustin, on 05/06/2008, -2/+0Please define the "subsidy" we are giving them? In detail.
        • mOdQuArK, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2You know, Google is actually pretty easy to use. I understand you might want to avoid sources of information that violate your world view, but since it's so easy, you might want to give it a try before responding to a message in a way which makes you look like a moron.
    • caponumen, on 05/06/2008, -5/+1Easy thing to do when you are sitting on your FAT institutional ASS, driving on the public dole.
      Once again Obama just doesn't get it, but I guarantee, "Joe and Jane six pack", most certainly do.
      They don't need no stinking economists either!
  • diggrnumber1, on 05/05/2008, -25/+55Clinton doesn't listen to economists, just like Ron Paul.

    Now, before you digg me down, look at the facts:
    Ron Paul is a big fan of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. Why? - because they are the only people that will agree to his entire economic plan (including its major flaws). The Ludwig von Mises Institute is run by Lew Rockwell, a guy who doesn't even have a degree in economics. It includes a total of only 21 economists. The guys endorsing this are not members of the Von Mises Institute and have not endorsed policies of Ron Paul, such as returning to the gold standard. I'm not saying that libertarianism is bad - I'm just saying that Ron Paul acts like he is an economist when he is not. He is a doctor and a politician - not an economist. Yet he will only listen to the ideas of a select few economists.

    Since he is a libertarian and is opposed to most taxes in general, I am assuming he will vote for repeal of the gas tax. For him, it doesn't matter what any Nobel Prize-winning economists say.
    • nekola413, on 05/05/2008, -4/+19As I understand your comment, Ron Paul will only listen to a few, trusted economists and would likely vote against the gas tax. Point taken. However, this is not the position of HRC. She has stated flat out that economists are "elitist" and in essence don't care about the struggles of working people. She is simply pandering for votes. Period. There is no other way to sugar coat what she is doing. Not only is she pandering, but this half-baked, half-assed law will NEVER get passed in the House and the Senate. And if by some "fairy tale" that she could get this law passed, Bush will NEVER sign it! Please.
      • diggrnumber1, on 05/05/2008, -8/+8fine, i will correct myself:

        ron paul only listens to the worst of the worst economists that have defected from the mainstream economic thought endorsed by the most intelligent, respectable economists such as the nobel prize-winners that signed this petition. clinton, on the other hand, no longer even listens to economists.
        • nekola413, on 05/05/2008, -1/+11OK, I didn't mean Ron Paul only listens to the "defected" or "fringe" economists, he seems like a person that will listen to all sides of issue from various people. Now whether he will take heed is another issue, I don't know his positions well enough to make that judgment. However, HRC is not demonstrating this trait at all. She is driving the gas tax issue for one reason only: to win votes in the short term. If you asked me a 6 months ago if I would have thought HRC would be this position so adamantly simply to win at all costs, I would not have believed it. I will say that this presidential campaign has taken the blinders off in regards to HRC and Bill Clinton. I will never hold those two in the same regard ever again.
        • bphicke, on 05/06/2008, -3/+4Give it up nekola, this guy is reaching hard. It is a pathetic attempt to rub HRC's filth onto Ron Paul.
        • bc289, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4I don't know, I think he brings up a good point. You have so many diggers denouncing Hillary's brushing off of economists, but Ron Paul is essentially doing the same. The majority of economic literature goes against what Ron Paul preaches. In fact, Ron Paul admits to this. Let me bring up this quote from his book, Gold Peace and Prosperity on page 37:
          "Another outrage associated with inflation is the endorsement of the process by most economists. It's bad enough to see the beneficiaries promote wealth transfer through inflation, but to have the majority of 20th-century economists do so as well is tragic. Some do so because they realize that their power and prestige depends on their giving an intellectual rationale to the acts of the inflation elite. But many do not benefit directly, and their motives may be good. But whether they promote inflation to help the poor, to help the rich, or just believe it is in everyone's interest, the results are horrendous. "

        • diggrnumber1, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5bc289 will now get dugg down for saying that a little bit of inflation is good for the economy. i learned that a little inflation is good for the economy in high school econ, so apparently most diggers didn't take high school econ. and for all you diggers that think bc289 is just a tool of the establishment, check out his profile and his previous comments. even if you disagree with him, he knows more about econ than probably anyone else here.
    • foxfire1311, on 05/05/2008, -4/+7Do you know who Donald Luskin is? Check him out...
      • diggrnumber1, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4i didn't know who he is, but i just looked him up and he apparently was the economic adviser to ron paul's campaign. he is now the economic adviser to john mccain's campaign. what's your point? every presidential candidate has real economic advisers - it doesn't mean they agree with the candidate. that's why they're called "advisers."
    • Akronos, on 05/05/2008, -4/+10Yeah, FA Hayek is quite a dumbass. Oh, and he has a Nobel prize for economics and is probably one of the most influential economists of the last century, but we can ignore that because Ron Paul learned a lot from him.
      The only reason these economists are against the Hillary's and McCain's plan of cutting the taxes is because it will affect the government's deficit and it's fund for highways. Notice that both Hillary and McCain are going to increase the size of the government. So it wouldn't make sense for them to be backing this, as it will only lead to further debt.
      On the other hand, Paul would have drastically reduced the size of government. Since he has a principled stance against taxes, it would make sense if he backed repealing the taxes.
      Similarly, when Bush says he is against SCHIP, it doesn't make sense because he is not a true conservative and obviously thinks it is a valid idea to spend money in Iraq but not for our children. It would, however, make sense for a true conservative to be against SCHIP, because they are against expanding the role of the government like that, and against government run welfare.
    • bc289, on 05/06/2008, -7/+7He's right. The majority of economists do not agree with Ron Paul. Just because some economists back Ron Paul does not mean the majority do. You will be hard pressed to find many economists who advocate introducing competing gold and silver currencies.
      • mOdQuArK, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2The "majority" of economists (at least the high profile ones) have been claiming that the U.S. economy was doing great - right up until the point that it started tanking. Now they're all cheering Bernanke on, saying that it's more important to restart the economy and inflation isn't so bad, while he prints hundreds of billions of dollars with nothing backing them. Time will tell whether they're just as full as ***** as they were before. If we end up in another Great Depression, will you be willing to reevaluate whether your belief in "mainstream" economists was correct?
      • bc289, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2well you're going way off topic; my point was that if you want to get mad at hillary for not listening to experts and brushing them aside, you should do the same for ron paul. But if you want to go there, well what you said means nothing. Their best estimate is our nation's best estimate, because they've spent more time thinking about the economy and more time evaluating economic indicators.

        Not every major economist was saying that the US economy was doing great, i don't know where you get those numbers. Second of all, you don't even know how bad our economy is doing - no one does. The numbers show that it is slowing down, and we'll probably be in a recession, but that's all we know. Third of all, you can say that the economists are wrong all you like, but you're not held accountable for your words. When we avoid a depression (a depression is much more severe than you probably think, it's highly unlikely), where will you be? In 5 years, you'll be saying the same thing. And finally, everything you said there - it's not backed by anything. You basically just made a bunch of claims based on nothing. This is why in the present, we rely on economists. Hindsight is always 20/20, but imagine where we'd be if we relied on your unsupported speculations to forecast the future.
    • Picaroon, on 05/06/2008, -6/+8Thank you! I really got sick of RP fanboys claiming he was great on economics, when he isn't--just look at his protectionist policies, for example.
    • bc289, on 05/06/2008, -4/+6I don't know, I think he brings up a good point. You have so many diggers denouncing Hillary's brushing off of economists, but Ron Paul is essentially doing the same. The majority of economic literature goes against what Ron Paul preaches. In fact, Ron Paul admits to this. Let me bring up this quote from his book, Gold Peace and Prosperity on page 37:
      "Another outrage associated with inflation is the endorsement of the process by most economists. It's bad enough to see the beneficiaries promote wealth transfer through inflation, but to have the majority of 20th-century economists do so as well is tragic. Some do so because they realize that their power and prestige depends on their giving an intellectual rationale to the acts of the inflation elite. But many do not benefit directly, and their motives may be good. But whether they promote inflation to help the poor, to help the rich, or just believe it is in everyone's interest, the results are horrendous. "
    • diggrnumber1, on 05/06/2008, -5/+4it appears as if many diggers have finally freed themselves from the cult of ron paul. today should be declared our independence day! digg and israel ftw!
    • Karna101, on 05/06/2008, -8/+4buried. you don't need an economics degree to read the constitution no more than you need to visit iraq to decide whether or not it was a good idea to go there
    • caponumen, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Easy thing to do when you are sitting on your FAT institutional ASS, driving on the public dole.
      Once again Obama just doesn't get it, but I guarantee, "Joe and Jane six pack", most certainly do.
      They don't need no stinking economists either!
    • captZEEbo, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Apples and oranges. Economists aren't some magical group of people that understand the economy perfectly. There's different schools of thought. Ron Paul has the school of the thought that free market economics makes the most sense. Most current economicists, are more from the keynesian school of economics (which believes government can stimulate the economy better than the free market left on its own).

      Hillary Clinton, with general Keynesian beliefs, is rejecting the Keynesian scholars. Ron Paul, with free market beliefs, is rejecting the Keynesian scholars.
    • captZEEbo, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Apples and oranges pt 2. What I really meant to say is the following: The real problem is not that Hillary disagrees with mainstream economists, it is that she disagrees with mainstream economists because they are "elitist." If she truly believed that, that would mean the rest of mainstream economic theory is not useful. Therefore, Hillary considers all current policies that are supported by mainstream economic theory are useless (because her reason of "elitist" should apply to every policy, and not just the gas tax holiday policy). That is scary. The difference is that Ron Paul disagrees with mainstream economic theory, because he believes in another, viable economic theory that many others also agree with. He thinks that the government should interfere with the economy as little as possible. When you vote for Ron Paul, you are, in a way, voting for his economic theory. And he pretty consistently believes and is willing to apply it everywhere. So now, if you'd vote for Hillary's "economic theory" (that mainstream economists are elitist) which isn't based on anything other than pandering to certain groups of the population, you have a problem.
    • bc289, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I see your point. I have a question, and it's a genuine question because I'm not sure if she's ever actually said anything about it: does she actually support keynesian economic theory? Does she know what it is?

      I still disagree though. It's true that he rejects keynesian economic theory in favor of another theory that some see as viable. Hillary Clinton also rejects economic theory, in favor of another that I'm not quite sure how many see as viable. However, the number of economists that support what Ron Paul claim are still quite low. If you believe that Hillary is making a mistake for shutting out what the majority of economists believe to be wrong, then you should feel the same for Ron Paul.

      Again, economists who believe a move back to a gold standard would be beneficial is quite low. In fact, those who believe low inflation reduces purchasing power to the extent that Ron Paul claims are quite low as well.
    • captZEEbo, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1"If you believe that Hillary is making a mistake for shutting out what the majority of economists believe to be wrong, then you should feel the same for Ron Paul." - bc289

      No. I don't care how many economists agree about a certain issue, I care what their reasoning behind their opinions are. If the reasoning behind why Hillary is making economic decisions is based on her own personal opinion and not any economic theory, I will be upset. If Ron Paul's reason for making an economic decision, is based on an economic theory that I agree with, I will be happy voting him in. When politicians stop listening to experts in the fields of economics, we will have a huge problem.
      The error in your critical thinking skills is this though:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
    • bc289, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Oh I see, my problem is that i have an error in my critical thinking skills.

      No. This entire article is about trusting the opinions of economists. I am SURE that you can find at least one economic expert that supports HIllary Clinton's views; she has several economic advisers after all. I am not talking about the merit of the content itself, but the credibility of economists. If you are to attack Hillary Clinton for dismissing what more than 200 economists denounce, then you must attack Ron Paul as well, since a large amount of economists would denounce his policies.

      This is not about the merit of the argument. If it were, then you shouldn't be digging an article that simply says that 200 economist denounce Clinton's argument. I'm sure there are a few economists who agree Clinton, as small a minority as they are.
    • bc289, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Ah, I couldn't edit it in time. In other words, this very idea of just voting with economic theory that you agree with - it has nothing to do with this article. In fact, it shouldn't matter how many economists support it. This very same logic of yours could be applied to supporting Hillary Clinton, as I'm sure she has economic advisers that cooked this up on some sort of theory of theirs. However, there is a reason this article is titled the way it is. If we are looking simply at how many economists support or denounce a certain policy, as this article title HEAVILY suggests, then the same reasons for denouncing hillary can be used to denounce ron paul.

      Many diggers in this very thread are arguing that Hillary is wrong, and the fact that so many economists disagree shows this (diggers say). Well, the same can be said for Ron Paul.
  • marytnurse, on 05/05/2008, -8/+25i'm not very good with money; i rely on those who are to help me figure out what to do with my retirement account; they've done much better than i would have done; i can manage to overdraft myself in a month even when i try.

    i would more surely trust 200 economists than one self-acknowledged exhausted politician who is up for election. besides, we ALL KNOW it wouldn't pass anyway, and it would have to START in the HOUSE, just as all financial bills do.
    • OwdenBowden, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3To rely on other is to be Disappointed! You can't trust anyone today and you really need to start thinking and doing for yourself. Otherwise, you are going to be taken over and over again. The American People have been relying on their representatives and look what happen - these people do not serve "The People" - they serve the "Highest Bidder / Contributer".

      The same goes for this election - If anyone thinks that Obama is the real deal - then I think you are going to be in for a surprise. This guy is flying by the seat of his paints. He has no plane in place - not even chicken scratch and everyone is Dreaming the Dream. But when they realize that there is no change and all we have now is the Democratic version of George W. Bush running the show - them maybe the next time (that is if there is a next time) you will actually do some real research into the person you are supporting. BTW - MCCain and Clinton are no bargain either but at least with them you know what your getting and can plan accordingly. With Obama - it is all smoke and mirrors and I dont like either.
    • lonehunter01, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1There is no room for logic in politics.
  • motogoat, on 05/05/2008, -4/+58This is just how Bush reacted to the Iraqi situation. All the experts agreed that it couldn't work and Bush said, '***** you, I'm right and I'll show you.' The American people eventually chirped in (what took you so ***** long) and mimicked the cries of the experts to no avail. This man was going to do what he wanted regardless of what Americans wanted or experts said.
    Ring a bell, Hillary? She's doing the same ***** thing and I'm BLOWN ***** AWAY that democrats are dumb enough to fall into a power hungry, overly ambitious DECIDER again.
    You guys deserve what you get out of this ***** election. Lot of fools. You had all kinds of better options that Hillary and McCain and it never even struck you once to support those people?
    Gah. If you can't save yourselves, nobody is going to be able to save you. Quit shooting yourselves in the foot and making ***** poor election decisions time after time. You're literally burying yourselves in *****.
    • MicheleAB, on 05/05/2008, -10/+5I would have given more thought to your statement if it weren't so full of swear words.
      • eyepower, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6I prefer to call them cuss words. Must be a regional thing. Oh ***** well.
      • cnot3, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1What the ***** are you talking about?
    • santaliqueur, on 05/05/2008, -2/+10Literally, huh?
      • eyepower, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2that's exactly what I just thought when I read that. I do really like the mental image of all this country's left-wing LITERALLY burying themselves in *****. They really ought to. For now I guess I will be happy with them doing so only figuratively.
  • Dumbledorito, on 05/05/2008, -0/+50I thought economists were elitist.

    You know, in the same way how everyone who actually knows more than me is elitist, especially if the facts they point at contradict what I want to believe is true.

    Because I want to elect people I can have a beer with.
    • eyepower, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Elite is not a bad thing. Look it up. I'm fine with elites and elitists as long as they actually know thier *****. It's just morons who act like elites that bug the tar out of me.
      • Dumbledorito, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2That was kind of my point.

        As Bill Mahr once said, "I want my leaders old, wise, and boring."
      • bkemper, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Wow, nothing gets by you, huh?
    • hooksie, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2You mean a Crown Royal.
    • caponumen, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Me too, especially the Quants :p.
      Once again Obama just doesn't get it, but I guarantee, "Joe and Jane six pack", most certainly do.
      They don't need no stinking economists either!
  • titumir, on 05/05/2008, -1/+8It will only matter if voters wake up..
  • 666dorado, on 05/05/2008, -2/+5why are hillary and mccain are on the same side on this issue? can she gain republican votes in the open primary in indiana?
    • WHNA, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1With the help of Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos, yes she can.
    • kublerross, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3i wouldnt be suprise if come november its obama/x and mccain/hillary
      • slearwig, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Don't say obama/x. Some people will play "The X" for sure. I would prefer Barack Obama/California Attorney General Jerry Brown in November.
        • PopcornDave, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1God please no. Even to get him out of California would be nice, but not nationally. Besides I think he's looking at challenging Arnold next time around. Personally I'd like to see an Obama/Richardson ticket.
          • aussiejan, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I also would have liked an Obama/Richardson ticket but as another person stated, it would be too brown a ticket to run nationally. Obama will need someone white on the ticket with him to appeal to the same voters that are clinging to Clinton.
      • 666dorado, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0haha, probably she'll find some way to make it hillary/mccain!!
    • jabberwolf, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1Yes she can win Democrats AND Republicans.
      Obama will only get leftist democrats...
      Thus hillary can win the election - Obama can't
      • PopcornDave, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Hillary couldn't get a date in an all women's prison. much less win a general election *unless* the republicans are so ***** at McCain for whatever that they just stay home.
  • foxfire1311, on 05/05/2008, -5/+27What I find sad, as an economist, is that politicians rarely (though Bill Clinton on NAFTA is a recent exception) listen to the advice of the nation's top economic thinkers...unless it's politically convenient.
    The NAFTA bashing is a great example. 99.9% of economists agree that free trade is good for all involved, yet Clinton and Obama brazenly ignore their advice in favor of appealing to small demographics in important voting districts.
    Don't get me wrong, the ClintonMcCain gas-tax plan is beyond ridiculous. However, that's not the point. The point is that Obama supporters (and Republican/Democratic voters in general) will go back to ignoring the advice of economic advisers in favor of bland democratic populism once this issue subsides.
    [commence down digging by everyone who hasn't taken an econ course]
    [commence up digging by everyone who's taken a 300+ level econ course]
    • pogfreak, on 05/05/2008, -8/+5GET OUT OF YOUR IVORY TOWER!!!
      • MtheoryX, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5WHAT ARE WE YELLING ABOUT???
        • commenter01, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4POGFREAK IS YELLING ABOUT FOXFIRE'S PEARLY *****... err ivory tower
        • PopcornDave, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5I think pogfreak wants Rapunzel to lower her hair.
    • jim3008, on 05/06/2008, -3/+6dugg, another example will be supporting the union or raising minimum wage,
      i know i will be buried anyway, so here's another one for you guys: i honestly don't think ron paul is best thing since sliced bread, gold standard won't solve anything
      • Photokon, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2The problem with free trade is that it is not free trade. We have workers rights here, China does not, and Mexico probably has little. How can we compete against peasants for anything manufacturing related? We can't, because to these people, getting $0.02 a day is like Jesus coming down from heaven. Obviously comparitive advantage comes into play, but basic worker's needs and living standards means free trade isn't free.
        • captZEEbo, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1[ ] understands globalization
          [ x ] should read The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century
      • foxfire1311, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7No kidding.
        People would lose their minds if they knew that Unions and the Minimum wage raise structural unemployment.
        Fact is, the econ data is out there. People just ignore it.
    • Photokon, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2The problem with free trade is that it is not free trade. We have workers rights here, China does not, and Mexico probably has little. How can we compete against peasants for anything manufacturing related? We can't, because to these people, getting $0.02 a day is like Jesus coming down from heaven. Obviously comparitive advantage comes into play, but basic worker's needs and living standards means free trade isn't free.
      • diggrnumber1, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2What IS free, then? Communism? Fascism? Feudalism?

        Adopt those ideologies if you want protectionism, because capitalism and protectionism don't mix.
      • zacharytelschow, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3So we can't compete with China and Mexico in manufacturing cheap, worthless crap. So what? If someone is willing to give me the exact same product for $5 or $15, why would I pay $15 for it? Losses in manufacturing open members of the workforce to do other things, raising our overall standard of living.
      • chewzter, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0Sorry, need to chip in here because this is one of the major misconceptions of free trade that economists seem not able to explain.

        Your wages are determined not by straight competition with other workers around the world but by your productivity compared to them (in the same way that in the same country 2 different people can earn different amounts whilst doing the same job if one of them is better at their job).

        People will say that it is unfair to say that western workers are better than those in developing nations, but when you think of all the investment into education, health and technologies (how much more productive does a computer make you?) it is easy to see why western workers are unambiguously more productive.

        Because western workers are more productive and can therefore earn more, there is money available for things such as workers rights, minimum wage etc etc. This is why you don't find economists unanimously calling for an end to the minimum wage.
      • captZEEbo, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1[ ] understands globalization

        [ x ] should read The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century
    • diggrnumber1, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Not that I don't agree with you and all, but how can you be an economist if you're only 20? I'm assuming you're either very precocious or you meant to say you're an econ major in college.
    • curtisag, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1Why is is reasonable to have an economic stimulus package that increases the debt, yet we cannot have a short term moratorium on gasoline taxes to take the sting out of the record high gas prices? People like me cannot afford these sky high prices, and I drive for a living so there's no way around it. I have to pay the *****, highly speculated price for now. Enlighten me please, how is taxing energy a good idea when poor people need it just as much as rich? And don't tell me it discourages consumption, you know as well as I do that the elasticity of demand for energy is extremely steep, especially for the US. The US Gov. can collect money in a way that doesn't punish working class people to fund their road programs.
      • foxfire1311, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5This is where the econ comes in.
        The price of gas right now is at market equilibrium (albeit it is high for reasons that include more than supply/demand curves...[falling dollar]...)
        If they eliminate the gas tax for the summer, the oil companies will do what any company would do in a similar situation: get the price back to market equilibrium. This means that the price will move back up to the with-tax-market-equilibrium almost immediately. You will pay the same. The difference is that the 10 billion dollars in tax revenue instead goes to ExonnMobil/Chevron/BP/Shell/ConocoPhilips.
        All taxes have negative externalities. The price elasticity of demand for gas is very odd (the curve is almost vertical until the price hits about $4.60 then people start dropping their consumption rapidly).
        • wc3452, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Remember, with any tax there is a dead weight loss and removing the tax will also remove the dead weight loss. Since what you're saying is that the elasticity of demand is fairly inelastic, it would follow that a majority of the tax is passed onto the consumer. The price of gas is not at market equilibrium, it is only at market price because of the tax involved. Market equilibrium has no tax, and i'm sure if you draw the graph you'll see that the market equilibrium w/o the tax is below the price with the tax.
      • captZEEbo, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1It is not reasonable to have an economic stimulus pack.

        But also, gasoline tax isn't horrible (assuming you're in favor of taxation in general), because it pushes the move for more environmentally sound vehicles.
    • caponumen, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Like it or not, in 1865 the issue on SLAVERY was deiced by a very bloody and costly conflict.
      Free trade as an intellectual concept is all fine and well, but any single or group of treaties that allows the specter of slavery to gain more ground in the world is illegal under international, Federal and state laws. Those of you that don't understand these facts had best not underestimate the resolve of those of us that do. The anti-slavery agenda is soon to become a HUGE political force all around the world and it will produce much more prosperity and CASH than 10X the current slave labor ever could.
  • URnotheonly1, on 05/05/2008, -15/+6NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DONT STOP THE TAXES, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WE WANT OUR TAX MONEY
  • bicyclethief, on 05/05/2008, -1/+10Nobel prize winning ones are the elitist of them all!
    • caponumen, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Once again Obama just doesn't get it, but I guarantee, "Joe and Jane six pack", most certainly do.
      They don't need no stinking economists either!
  • taradisiac, on 05/05/2008, -8/+3Too bad one of them will be president.
  • theNorthcutt, on 05/05/2008, -14/+7So I should vote for Obama, right? 30 more negative articles about Obama's opponents and I'll vote for him, so figure about 1am or so.
  • ralphthemagi, on 05/05/2008, -5/+17It's not a terrible idea, politically. These people are politicians, not economists.

    It will have a small impact for some people, and make them feel as if the government "hears them," but at the end of the day it creates the exact kind of incentives that have positioned us as the largest user of petrol with the lowest taxes.

    What really needs to happen is that the tax on gasoline needs to increase—a lot. Like, 50%. At $6-$8/gallon we'd be more inline with what the rest of the Western world pays, and we'd better capture the externalities of petrol production and consumption. Moreover, it would force auto manufacturers to give a damn about fuel efficiency, discourage people from buying 6000lbs+ vehicles (make the roads an order of magnitude safer), and encourage the distribution and consumption of locally grown produce instead of the transportation of subsidized ***** from all over the place.

    Raising the tax on gas provides a LOT more positive externalities than lowering it.

    Unfortunately, no one is going to vote for a raise in taxes.
    • foxfire1311, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5No, bad idea.
      The US economy is more linked to industry that depends on petroleum for transportation than countries in the EU. You are going to have the same problem Clinton has right now if you try and find economists that support a 50% gas tax. Movement away from dependence on oil takes time (years), unless you want to shock the US economy into stagflation. A huge increase in fuel prices would represent a huge increase in production costs for....everyone.
      And raising the gas tax does not bring less externalities than lowering it. Lowering it means oil companies get 10+ billion in profit this summer. Raising it means recession and subsequent stagflation.
      I'm sure if you forced economists to pick between lowering and raising the gas tax, they would pick the former every time.
      • ralphthemagi, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3I didn't say you'd raise it tomorrow.

        And, in fact, you can raise the tax on gas without shocking the economy AT ALL. How? Because oil is currently in a bubble being traded as a paper commodity like never before, largely due to investors moving away from dollars or other commodities and into oil. Eventually that will burst, and the price of oil will normalize to what many expect to be around the $60-$80 mark, which is where the price would fall today as a result of supply and demand for consumption. You can create a tax that will fit in such that the price people are paying today become the new floor. No dramatic shock, no speculative stagflation, and no huge increase in production costs. The world keeps turning, and the price of petrol is now "more accurate."
    • jabberwolf, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2I agree - we just raise taxes as much as possible!!!
      Because we all know that if we give 50% of what we make, it will solve everyones problems.

      In fact, I'm really not sure what economist agrees with raising taxes? Most are ardent believers in capitalism and less government intervention as possible.
      Why? - Because it's proven to work !
      • ralphthemagi, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4It is capitalism. The production and consumption of oil causes externalities. Capturing those in the price through taxes isn't anti-capitalist.
      • zacharytelschow, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5You simply don't get it. Raising gas taxes isn't inconsistent with capitalism and a free market one bit. Raising the gas tax creates an incentive for using less gas overall and exploring alternative fuels. As long as the money is spent wisely, this is simply pushing the market in a direction that is most beneficial for all.
        • ralphthemagi, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1"As long as the money is spent wisely, this is simply pushing the market in a direction that is most beneficial for all."

          Actually, that would be anti-capitalist.
      • captZEEbo, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I don't think you understand what "free market" means. It means allowing buyers and sellers to voluntarily and peacefully agree on prices for goods and services. When you allow a 3rd party (government) to "steer" the economy in the way that is "best for all", you INEVITABLY hurt people. What is most beneficial for ME, would be to allow ME to keep all the money I earn, and allow me to spend it as I see fit. Who knows what's best for me? The federal government, or me? Answer: me. This same principle can be applied to the whole population of the world.
        I personally don't think spending about 20% of what I earn on invading Iraq is beneficial for me, but I have almost no choice in the matter. So how can you say that it is most beneficial for all? It's most beneficial for possibly a majority (50%+) of the citizens, but it's not very beneficial for a hell of a lot of citizens (49% or less).

        Lesson: whenever you raise taxes, you are lessening personal freedom and hurting the free market, because the free market is voluntary price agreements. There is no other way about it. Whether you personally think the government is helping the country overall is irrelevant. The government is still forcing a lot of people that don't agree with them to agree.
        • ralphthemagi, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1"Lesson: whenever you raise taxes, you are lessening personal freedom and hurting the free market, because the free market is voluntary price agreements."

          Not entirely correct. In order for that to be true, you assume that all the costs and benefits of any given good are being captured by the free market price. This is not always true. If you tax a good such that its price reflects the externalities that it exhibits, you have not done anything to hurt personal freedom or the free market. All you've done is correct for a failure that the market was unable to internalize.
  • MaceSoul, on 05/05/2008, -13/+6I quit caring what nobel prize winners think after they gave one to Arafat.
    • seomike, on 05/05/2008, -5/+7and Al Gore too lol
    • diggrnumber1, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4that's the nobel PEACE prize. the other nobel prizes are still legitimate.
  • gabrielbeug, on 05/05/2008, -5/+6But that list includes several prominent liberal economists, some who have also opposed the Bush tax cuts and pushed for a higher minimum wage in other petitions. The list featured economists from liberal groups such at the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, as well as several former Clinton staffers. You can find 200 people of any profession who are biased because of their political beliefs. This is really not too surprising....
    • FairDinkumMate, on 05/05/2008, -1/+4And maybe if you weren't so biased because of your own political beliefs you could address the message, NOT THE MESSENGER!
      This article is about the summer gas tax proposed by both Clinton & McCain. I see nowhere in your comment that you addressed that. Typically for someone unable to put forward a logical point in favor of this proposal(or whichever issue you happen to be commenting on), you decide to attack the messenger. PATHETIC!!!
      • jabberwolf, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Maybe he points out facts that you're too scared to listen too.
        Most economists favor less taxes, and less government intervention as possible - even for a short amount of time.

        These economists are handpicked to support ONE point of view, yet you accuse someone else of doing the same thing?

        If you want to see PATHETIC!!! = Look in the mirror!
        • FairDinkumMate, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Again MORON - If you (or any of your alter-egos) can come up with some FACTS to discredit the claim by these 200 economists that "The moratorium would mostly benefit oil companies while increasing the federal budget deficit and reducing funding for the government highway maintenance trust fund" go right ahead.
          But of course, as always with you & your ilk, FACTS are just things that get in the way of your idealogical viewpoint so it's much easier to fabricate mistrust by attempting to discredit the messenger(s) rather than the message!
        • Badandy127, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Typical internet idiot response FairDickumMate:

          He never said that the claim by these 200 economists is incorrect, he was merely pointing out that the fact that the claim shouldn't be endorsed or hated just because 200 economists said so, as you can find "professional opinions" on different sides of almost every issue.

          MORON!!!11one
          • FairDinkumMate, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1He called the economists "biased because of their political beliefs"! If you don't believe this is an attempt to discredit the messenger then you've been watching too much Faux news.
            And if anyone is posting a "Typical internet idiot response" it is you & your right-wing mates here that despite now 3 requests have FAILED to provide one single FACT to discredit these economists point of view. It's tougher on you guys here at Digg than it is for your Faux news heros because people can actually call you out for your factless ideological diatribes here!
          • Badandy127, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0I don't want to discredit these economists points of view. We haven't "failed" to do anything. I personally agree with these 200 economists. What is your problem? Where was there ever a fact-less ideological diatribe? I simply said that the reason people should agree with these economists points of view is not because there are 200 of them, but because of what they're trying to say. You can find professional opinion on both sides of nearly every issue. I never said I disagreed with them. God, you're so annoying.
    • DavidYeah, on 05/06/2008, -3/+4I don't think there's such a thing as a conservative economist; just economists who are bankrolled by the Heritage foundation to find reasons and ways to get rid of taxes and give public moneys to the rich.
      • Badandy127, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0Where do you think those public moneys come from?

        Nothing is stopping people from being rich. Quit complaining and do something with your life.
  • Ell3, on 05/05/2008, -15/+9Complete BS of course.

    "The moratorium would mostly benefit oil companies..." - It would have no impact whatsoever on the oil companies, except increased sales.

    ".....while increasing the federal budget deficit...." - If this were money being spent on a social program (read: handout) do you think you'd see an article about how economists think it's a bad idea? Of course not.

    • baronsmeg, on 05/06/2008, -2/+8so demand would be up then right? Doesn't price go up with an increase in demand? if i can remember my ECON 101 class.
  • taylorn, on 05/05/2008, -2/+7Politicians don't read digg... but they do read letters from their constituents. Go to out Govit.com, you can vote on this legislation and have your vote sent direct to your elected representatives. It's fast, easy, and free.

    Vote No on the Gas Tax Holiday Bill:
    www.govit.com/s_2890
    • choppasizzle, on 05/06/2008, -5/+2vote no on helping out the middle class? wow you really are a moron...
      • Dumbledorito, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Let's see, you cut the gas tax, which creates even more of a budget defecit, you get a marginally lower price which ups demand enough that the oil companies raise prices back to what they were before.

        How does that help, again? And out of curiosity, is "moron" the only name-calling tool you have?
        • diggrnumber1, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1it won't really do much of anything to supply or demand. it will only increase the budget deficit by letting the oil companies keep more of their pre-tax profits. that is essentially all it will do - almost all of the benefits will be passed on to big oil.
        • nosecohn, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1And what happens when you raise the deficit? The government has to print more money to meet its obligations, resulting in inflation (exactly what's happening right now). The gas tax holiday is likely to cost the middle class more than it saves them in the long run.
      • bwlytle, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0Let's see...according to "experts" Eliminating the federal tax, about 18 cents a gallon, would encourage more driving, putting added pressure on supplies, and driving the underlying price of gasoline higher. Since gasoline taxes go to pay for rebuilding crumbling roads and bridges, this is probably not a good time to do away with them.

        In addition to that, someone who fills up their tank once per week, at an average of 15 gallons per fill-up, saving $0.18/gallon will save $32 OVER THE COURSE OF 3 MONTHS. Is $30 going to help the middle class choppasizzle???
  • choppasizzle, on 05/06/2008, -12/+2please Obamakins, this must be the ultimate wake-up call for you. these types of "new deal" policies are the only thing that will get the middle class out of this rut we are in. Rockefeller and his Exxon interests want you to continue to suffer; which is the austerity in which their puppet Obama speaks of. Enough is enough, time to stop the post-modern coup for good! Adios Barack!
    • MtheoryX, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6Yes, me saving 50 bucks this summer is going to make such a freakin huge difference in this country's lack of an energy policy. Idiot.
      • choppasizzle, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1its the principle you moron! its called start taking the burden off of our backs and putting it back on someone ***** else! but noooooo you will continue to drink the Obama "austerity" flavored kool-aid...you probably don't even know what that means you ***** tard..
        • MisterFreeze, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3You're going to get taxed either way. The real question is what kind of economic pressure taxes should exert. Should you tax income and penalize people for working hard? Should tax people's homes and penalize them for saving up and buying a house? Or should you tax consumption of resources, penalizing people who make choices that waste these resources?
  • frontalpha, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5The gas tax is useless to even the lower class. Thirty dollars doesn't go anywhere in this country today. Are you going to miss thirty dollars or should we implement a more efficient plan to save more money on gas? I think America can do better than thirty dollars.
    • hittnrun, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1I believe the people who will actually appreciate the $30, don't own computers, elitist b!tch.
  • DavidYeah, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Hillary's "elitism" frame is going waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too far. It was cute and funny as an attack on Obama, but now she's using it to explain bizarre economic policies. Hell, she won't even get to put this one into play for another 14 months, assuming she's president.

    I don't like to throw out the "pandering" card, but since's gone against the only people I listen to, that being the experts, it shows she's no longer looking for my vote. She's going after Joe-Six-Pack and fan-boys of Grover "Drown the Government In the Bathtub" Norquist, and throwing the experts under the bus. She has some serious explaining to do if she expects me to rally behind her in the coming months as a potential Democratic candidate.
    Seriously, how does she expect to gain the confidence of people who expect good policy to come out of her administration if she's willing to throw economists under the bus?
  • baronsmeg, on 05/06/2008, -3/+4If $30 means alot to the average American then we are in alot of trouble. A fairly typical day for me:
    2 bus tickets to and from work/school - $4
    Smokes - $5
    Subway foot long meal - $8
    first and second coffee - $6.50
    Soda - $1.50
    1 beer at the end of the day - $3.00 (i would like more)
    thats $28 in one day, man I can't wait to have an extra $30 over the entire summer. (wait I don't drive, DAM)
  • dwtd, on 05/06/2008, -4/+4I can't believe anyone thinks this is a good idea, and judging from comments I've seen on some of the news stories, a lot of people support this plan.
    Removing an 18 cent per gallon tax does nothing but encourage oil companies to raise the price of gas by 18 cents per gallon.
    • thredden, on 05/06/2008, -2/+6not to mention, if we try and windfall tax the oil companies, they will raise prices to cover there margins. in reality, they have us by the balls, and the best way to fight that, is to use less gas.
  • mcnasby, on 05/06/2008, -3/+4Clinton has solidified a lesson I learned early in the Bush presidency. Hubris is a *very* scary trait. It's even scarier when large groups of people (read: Clinton supporters) reinforce and condone that sort of arrogance.

    If for no other reason, a prominent factor in my vote for Obama was the fact that I saw him say, in the main stream media, "I made a mistake." Really, when was the last time you heard a mainstream politician say those four words on prime time TV?
  • joeanon, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2Wow, that's almost as many 'experts' as they had denouncing Global Warming...

    I'm so convinced by unverified expert testimony.

    I'm sure a tax break would work....IF it coincided with a real plan.

    Just as tapping the national oil reserve would also help.

    But these are all stop gap measure which need to have REAL plans behind them.

    Primarily the goal should be to raise the dollar and move to biofuel. but probably not cropland biofuel as it's too expensive as it yield too little per acre.
    • Antwan718, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1BioDiesel would solve more than you know, it would remove most of the waste vegi oil from restaurants as well as cutting out the percentage of diesel that truckers need by 20 percent, considering a B100 fuel only has 8% less BTU content than a 100% petro-Diesel the difference is so nominal that it wouldn't offset the 30 cent drop in price. And that would also trickle down everywhere in the American ecnonomy, including the cost of running school buses and any other sort of public transportation.
  • TheMachine1, on 05/06/2008, -4/+0Lower cost(from a tax cut) will stimulate higher demand. Supply will be tight during the summer months anyway. Which means the price could be as high or higher with the tax cut.
    • jabberwolf, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1GAS is AN INELASTIC PRODUCT !! ( Look it up! )
      Not completely but very much so, people use it mostly because they have to and will cut spending in other areas to spend on gas. Produce at stores and most consumables will raise in prices.

      Demand for gas will go up during the summer months, but if people dont buy anything because they are pinching pennies for gas, it will sink the economy!
      And if that happens, it won't matter much after that. We'll be ***** because dumbasses didnt take into account the whole picture!
  • Luvtodigg, on 05/06/2008, -4/+4Digg kills me. Is there anyone who is not an Obama supporter. Let's face it he is exciting because he is young and fun but what has he done to make him qualified for the Oval Office? I like the guy too. Yet I have to look at his past, his stance (or lack there of) and say I don't get it. Don't slam me, I like the guy. Just look at the candidates past and there views and he cannot be the best choice to date. Maybe he will come out with something but to date he is an empty suit.
    • xen0blue, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2THIS
    • Qong, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3He's a terrible candidate for the Presidency in my opinion.
      The guy very clearly has some race issues, amongst other things; I really don't see him having a positive impact on our country.
    • jabberwolf, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5Obamatards arent known for their intelligence. They are smart, but usually in 1 or 2 areas, but that gives then the false belief they know everything. And they are sadly and amusingly stupid in thinking so. Oh well, it's good for laughs.
  • xen0blue, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2obama can do no wrong.
  • RRJackson, on 05/06/2008, -7/+2"We want the guy who supports black theology and radical Islam!!!"

    Thankfully America disagrees.
    • pablo0713, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Huh?
      • papipablo, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Notice how RR can't let his racism go for even a second to talk about the issue of the gas tax?
        • RRJackson, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1Notice how my stalker can't resist the urge to cling to every word I type?
          • papipablo, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1What was that about the gas tax? Oh that's right, nothing.
  • Ryosen, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I thought that the idea behind the tax "holiday" was that the tax would be collected from the oil companies instead? I saw Clinton's speech on CNN over the weekend where she discussed this. She didn't say that there would be a moratorium on the gas tax, only that the responsibility for payment would be shifted away from the consumer and to the oil companies. Of course, the gas companies would just pass the cost increase to us at the pumps but the article makes it sound as though the entire tax itself was to be put on hold.

    Which is it?
    • minoss, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1If you actually knew anything about how companies work you would understand that this doesn't matter at all.
    • lilsis, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1doesn't matter; regardless who pays, consumers and producers share the tax burden equally
  • minoss, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2So where are the economists denouncing the Obama protectionism and ethanol energy plans?
  • YodaJones, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2Hillary should STFU and iron my shirts bitch.
    • hittnrun, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1The b!tch Obama is better at it.
    • onestrawplz, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1we know hillary sucks, but the misogynistic comments are completely unnecessary.
      • Badandy127, on 05/06/2008, -1/+0What is necessary is you get off digg and make your husband a sandwich.
  • Qong, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2I have no problem at all with removing the burden of taxes from the American people.

    The bottom line is that these taxes are doing absolutely nothing to help us. Gas taxes are supposedly going to fix roads and infrastructure, yet many roads are in absolutely horrid conditions and we have bridges that are ready to collapse.

    Does that sound like our tax money going to a good use? It doesn't to me.
  • Pinkertinkle, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1What a bunch of elitists.
  • hittnrun, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Sure, its a gimmick. Sometimes the sheeple need to see a little something coming back their way.
  • FLUX, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1can just one of you liberal fools explain to me how keeping some of MY money is a bad thing ( no matter how small the amount it is my money not the governments )
    Our govt refuses to figure out that taxes are the citizens money not the govts they need to earn our taxes not steal our money.
    someone name one govt program that uses it money wisely and has actually lowered its budget in any year because it either solved its problem or became more efficient so it didn't need as much money NEVER HAPPENED !!!!! NEVER WILL !!!! so why do you liberals thank giving them more money and power will fix anything
    • jasimo, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1You *won't* get to keep it. The oil companies will simply charge the same amount for gas. It's been tried before, always happens.
      Take an economics class or two before you start calling people "fools." Education is not a bad thing.
    • FLUX, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1So tell me Mr economist when has it ever been tried ???? Do you know the future ? How do you know the oil companies will just mark it up you have no proof that will happen
  • londubh, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1No one ever listens to economists? I mean like how many rich economists are there? Well, there was Ken Lay but he's a dead criminal now.
  • mhall5, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0``I'm not going to put my lot in with economists'' because ``we would design it in such a way that it would be implemented effectively.'' -Clinton
    Really Means "i dont trust Economists, they dont know what they are talking about"
  • kjones555, on 05/06/2008, -1/+0This sounds familiar...

    Obama ftw!!
  • kristov, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1are we really going to once again elect someone who doesnt listen to experts? i mean seriously - how do these retarded americans make it to the polls? shouldnt they be getting lost on the way or stopping off for a beer and forgetting or something?

    do not vote for this woman!
  • DudeInAustin, on 05/06/2008, -1/+0Let's see: does $30 make a difference? It does if you have to choose between paying rent and buying food when you are a low-income worker. It might make a difference to my daughter who works at a Subway Sandwich shop and drives a car with 140,000 miles on it.

    Why the dynamics of a presidential election do make this political payola, the reality is that high energy prices are nailing lower-income families. If they could afford a nice, new energy-stingy car they would go out and get one. But, they drive old heaps because that's what they can afford and cram the family inside.

    Those who advocate doubling the gas tax might as well just plan on bankrupting every low-income worker with a big family and a long commute.

    I kind of think Congress owes us a break after their goofy decision to block U.S. drilling in Alaska and off our own coasts. We are letting the equivalent of our daily imports from Saudi Arabia sit under the tundra. Hello, anybody hear of the laws of supply and demand? You can't choke off supply, see demand increase, and not see prices rise.
  • jfoxbox, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0On this one Obama is correct. It is a political ploy. We waste our time talking about it. By the time it passed, it would October. Can they lower taxes retroactively? I remember them raising them retroactively! In May and all we have to choose from are three losers. One liberal wacko, one power hungry liberal, and one old man liberal.
    Let the market drive the price of oil.
  • caponumen, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Easy thing to do when you are sitting on your FAT institutional ASS, driving on the public dole.
    Once again Obama just doesn't get it, but I guarantee, "Joe and Jane six pack", most certainly do.
    The 25% of the core liberal elites are certainly on his side, but they already were!
    This is a bonehead chess move that MILF Clinton was VERY SMART to avoid.
    Kudos to her.........
  • bruce86, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Haha, this sounds like a false consensus like global warming.
  • Gorgamel, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1Breaking news! Clinton, McCain actually have a plan. Obama, your thoughts? Anything besides hope and change and butterflies?
  • jasimo, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1The gas tax holiday takes cynical pandering to a whole other level. Besides it being ineffectual and likely counterproductive, there's no way in hell it will get introduced in Congress any time soon, nor would it pass, nor would Bush sign it. Putting it forth is nothing but a blatant way to get support from uneducated or naive voters in NC and IN and across the country. "Golly, she wants to save us that tax, but that Obama fella don't feel our pain."
    The gas companies/station owners will raise prices by the amount of the tax. If they're "made" to pay the tax they'll simply pass it on to the consumer. IT SIMPLY WON'T WORK.

    While we're ignoring economists, should we also start ignoring doctors and engineers and begin performing our own operations and building our own bridges?
  • kirby9058, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Anyone that has taken a basic high school econ class should understand why these gas tax changes are a terrible idea. It's so basic, it's ridiculous. I don't think people understand how simple it really is, when you think about it.
  • bigbigspoon, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Fight back,,,,,,,Gas Hack
    http://digg.com/gaming_news/Gas_Hack
  • AvangionQ, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1[REPEAT POST] Thanks to the waning end of the Peak Oil curve, as more countries have greater demand for petroleum fuels that supply can't keep up with the demand, the prices are only going to get higher over time ... at some point in the near future, we as a nation have to seriously consider alternative energy sources, implementing the public works project of creating an electric grid as a replacement for parking meters for plugging in cars, and the very real possibility of recycling our gas guzzling SUV's for more energy efficient hybrids and all-electric vehicles ... the best place to start would be to invest the gas tax money into alternative energy research and infrastructure development ... [ADDENDUM] That politicians would be willing to pander to the willful ignorant masses who would rather save $30 a year now, than to have a long term energy solution where we reduce and eventually eliminate our dependence on gasoline and other limited availability petroleum based fuels, is a shame to our nation ... we need to look upon the upcoming energy crisis as a challenge to America -- something that we can overcome, if we're just willing to put in the effort ...
  •  

    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.