New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman slammed the plan offered by presidential candidates Sens. John McCain and Hillary Clinton to fight high gas prices by suspending the federal gasoline tax for a few months, calling it “so ridiculous, so unworthy of the people aspiring to lead our nation, it takes your breath away.”
The political pandering, he said, will only increase our debt to China and continue a transfer of wealth to Saudi Arabia. “This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering.”
54 Comments
Candidates from both parties are fishing for votes and running their mouths about high gas prices. None of their proposed solutions will solve the problem. Short-term knee-jerk political reactions.
In fact, lower prices will help increase consumption, further driving up cost.
Congress: CAFE Standards effective 2020 - zero good.
Open the strategic reserve - zero good.
Summer time zero fed tax - zero good.
Tax the shit out of oil companies - zero good.
The only immediate resolution is for all Americans to cut their consumption of gasoline.
How does McCain plan on making up for the loss in tax revenue in order to pay for road repair? Oh right, just put some more money on the credit card so we can pay later but with interest.
As usual, bad fiscal policy from the Republicans. Perhaps if they supported higher CAFE standards proposed in the 90s we wouldn’t have to discuss this. But Republicans whined that we’d all be driving bubble cars and Americans don’t want more fuel efficient vehicles. Expect more of the same with McSame, er McBush, um I meant McCain.
Actually Maggot we will worry about McCain you should be worrying about Clinton. She is your candidate. Must have missed in the writeup that she is for the same thing those whining republicans are for.
Maybe Friedman is looking forward to more pie being thrown in his face by Brown University students.
ksgrm, I wasn’t aware that I voted for Clinton. I do recall supporting Obama in the caucus. So enlighten me where you derived your “fact” from.
“Perhaps if they supported higher CAFE standards proposed in the 90s we wouldn’t have to discuss this.”
Like ksgrm stated Maggot perhaps you should be worrying about what your democratic congress is doing instead of the past republican one. The CAFE standards just enacted by congress 35 MPG by 2020 (fleet average) is no better than earlier ones. In fact, with recognition of the effects on green house gases and today’s energy picture - the new standards do more harm than good.
Yeah, those nasty republicans again……
“Americans don’t want more fuel efficient vehicles.”
Of course they don’t want them - Americans really don’t give a rat’s butt about the environment nor the balance of trade.
It’s the pocket book and good looks that count.
But with zero help from the government, and zero help from the big three automakers, Americans are being dragged - kicking and screaming to smaller more efficient cars.
See the news? GM closing/shutting down production line shifts at factories building SUV’s and big pickemup trucks.
Dealerships cannot unload stockpile of used SUV’s and pickups.
Why? It’s called $3.61 a gallon. It’s worry about $4.00 a gallon.
Higher fuel prices are what will drive consumers to conserve.
You mean the current Democratic Senate which only has 49 Democrats? Yeah, a Senate with less than half the votes has so much power to do whatever they want. With 49 Democrats the Republicans never filibuster anything and a veto is so easy to override. Try dwelling in reality Amway.
I’ve reminded you about Trent Lott back in January, clearly you haven’t learned anything then so there’s no point in wasting time with you now. Contrary to what you think it isn’t the Democrats opposing higher CAFE standards.
“Of course they don’t want them - Americans really don’t give a rat’s butt about the environment nor the balance of trade.”
Yeah, only 3/4 of the population thinks the environment is a top political issue:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/survey.html
But why do you need facts when you are a Republican?
I guess the rhetorical question should have been:
“How does McCain [and Clinton] plan on making up for the loss in tax revenue in order to pay for road repair?”
good question. Only those who use the roads should be required to foot the bill for road repair. It makes sense. The more you drive, the more you should pay in taxes to cover the repairs on the roads which you drive on. Not taxing gasoline and then taking the money from other taxed revenue sources is unfair and a zero sum game politics.
“with less than half the votes has so much power to do”
Nice try Maggot,but no cigar. The democrats supported and initiated the 2007 Energy Act. They applauded it’s signature. Patted each other on the back. Even made speeches BRAGGING about the good things they did.
The 2007 energy bill was not one of those 50-50 split affairs. It was the democrats goal.
“Yeah, only 3/4 of the population thinks the environment”
Yes, there are green environmentalists at every social event and party these days. They park their gas-guzzling SUV’s out back.
It’s one thing to talk the walk. It’s quite another to walk it.
” taking the money from other taxed revenue sources is unfair and a zero sum game politics.”
Sounds to me like the gasoline tax is a consumption tax.
The entire government should be run like that. Won’t happen because there would be no money to steal from other programs to fund special interests (or socialist redistribution plans).
The present system exists soley to rob peter to pay paul.
“Americans don’t want more fuel efficient vehicles.”
Not true. Many dealerships have waiting lists for hybrids. There are no good deals on hybrids because demand is so high. They can’t make enough of em. The big trucks? Fire sale…
Too bad Amyway, the bill that became law was a compromise in order to get more Republican support. It was a watered down version of what the House had initially passed. The “huge Democratic majority” couldn’t get the oil royalties repealed and weakened the CAFE standards.
Then again, these are merely facts so you aren’t interested. What the Democrats did pass was a huge improvement over the inaction of the Republicans while they were in control passing bills for corporate welfare.
“Yes, there are green environmentalists at every social event and party these days. They park their gas-guzzling SUV’s out back.”
How many is that exactly? Or are you making yet another claim you can’t support.
Used car dealerships are seeing a huge glut of people wanting to sell their suv’s for more fuel efficient vehicles. Why the glut if, as you claim, nobody wants fuel efficient vehicles?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/26/AR2008042601145.html
“Not true. Many dealerships have waiting lists for hybrids”
Sol,
I have a slightly different view on this. Since I’ve driven a hybrid since 2003, I frequently stop at Honda dealerships to scope out the latest and the Toyota to see latest on my next car - the Prius.
I didn’t convert because I care about the environment. I don’t particularly like driving a tiny car. But I do like not spending money on something being thrown away out my exhaust pipe. I also don’t like making camel jockeys richer.
If not for higher fuel prices, I would not have converted. I still would love a great big pickup with a ladder to get inside. Or a tank like SUV for road safety.
So I don’t think most American “want” a more fuel efficient car, as in DESIRE. I think some of us are waking up to realizing we NEED a more fuel efficient care despite what we really WANT.
I wonder, if society frowned on big gas guzzling cars like they at one time did when women wore animal fur coats - would they go away?
“How many is that exactly?”
Maggot, have you ever heard the term, “tripping over mouse turds?”
“Last year 2007, 353,000 hybrids were sold in the United States, accounting for 2.2 percent of the total market. They are expected to comprise 7 percent of the market by 2015″
A whopping 7 percent maggot!!!
Yes, annual sales of the hybrids themselves are up 30-40%. But that is STILL a tiny portion of the new cars flooding our highways.
#
Maggotpunk
Posted April 30, 2008 at 1:16 pm | Permalink
But why do you need facts when you are a Republican?
——————————–
Duh Libs never use facts. It’s usually starts out or ends up as an insult, followed by pontificating with words they would never use in normal every day speech (to make themselves appear smarter) and a bit of Bushisms or McSames.
Then, to top it off, they’ll complain and whine how they aren’t getting some sort of government benefit.
Whine, bitch, moan, complain - the most common action verbs used by duh Libs.
Didn’t anyone tell this people when they were growing up that no one likes whiners?
The libs always use the excuse, “it was a compromise
to get something done”.
That provides them a cover to blame the republicans when it later goes wrong.
Sort of like the congress voting FOR the war, before democrats were against it. Ditto the Energy Bill.
Stand by: I have many, many quotes from leading democrats upon passage. You wanna see em Maggot??
Wrong again Amway. First hybrid cars are not the only fuel efficient cars on the market. The trend is consumers aren’t buying the most gas guzzling vehicles and are showing a preference for vehicles that consume less gas. Those wanting to buy trucks are going for smaller trucks and so on.
GM cut production of their full size trucks and SUV’s since the demand for those vehicles dropped considerably.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/30/business/30gm-nyt.php
Cars outsold light trucks. The Ford Focus sales went up 24%, the Honda Fit up 73%, the Yaris up 83%. Trucks and SUVs were dropped around 28% on average.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/4/25/1365/45250/
Contrary to what you claim it appears people want smaller, more efficient vehicles.
“Stand by: I have many, many quotes from leading democrats upon passage. You wanna see em Maggot??”
So your claim is that the Congress passed the regular energy bill that wasn’t weakened by the Senate? Certainly compare the two bills and you’ll see that they aren’t the same. But those are merely facts, something that you can’t be bothered with.
Maggot,
I believe you are making my point for me.
Thanks
Sorry Amyway, you’ve been refuted on all your claims.
You’ve claimed people don’t want more fuel efficient cars, and you’ve claimed the majority of people aren’t concerned about the environment. Absolutely proven wrong on both cases. Have you noticed I’m the only one presenting facts while you are only presenting unsupported claims?
That’s why Republicans hate facts, they don’t have any.
Victory! Victory! Victory! Victory!
Senate Dems Pass Energy Bill
Posted by Michael Link on June 22, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Yesterday the US Senate passed important legislation increasing fuel efficiency, creating laws against price gouging, and boosting the use of renewable fuels.
It’s a tremendous accomplishment for the Congress, and the House already passed similar legislation.
My source? None other than:
http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/06/victory_senate.php
The fact that the Democrats passed an energy bill isn’t in dispute. What you are claiming is that there was no compromise bill that was a weaker version of the original House bill. Once you compare the initial bill to the one that was eventually passed you’ll see that you are, as usual, wrong.
By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press
WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi solidified Democratic support behind her energy initiatives Monday and quieted rebellious PARTY members who feared U.S. energy production would be hurt.
To garner broader DEMOCRATIC support, Pelosi scrapped proposed changes in the way royalties are collected from offshore federal oil and gas leases.
Pelosi, bowing to DEMOCRATIC lawmakers in OIL-PRODUCING regions, agreed to some changes in the way permits are issued for energy leases on federal land.” (AP)
See there Amway, it wasn’t that hard was it?
Speaker of the House of the Representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is tired of waiting for action on an energy bill including new fuel economy standards.
Speaker Pelosi:“This bill repeals those subsidies and invests in the clean renewable energy that will put us on a path toward energy security and energy independence in a fiscally responsible way — by repealing subsidies only to Big Oil companies already making record profits.”
Chairman Rangel:“One day our children and grandchildren will ask where we stood when we had the opportunity to chart a new course for America’s energy policy and this bill takes an important first step in that direction.”
The democrats bragged and shook hands and smiled for the camera’s after they voted for the 2007 Energy Bill.
Regardless of compromise (which I never disputed), the DEMOCRATIC controlled congress members each voted FOR the bill.
Just like they voted FOR THE WAR.
An energy bill which as I said initial
Congress: CAFE Standards effective 2020 - zero good.
I don’t believe anyone was twisting each democrats arm or holding a gun to their head?
They could have voted NO.
But they didn’t. And then bragged about their GREAT accomplishment. You want some more quotes?
But again, you are tripping over mouse turds.
None of congress actions will curb the problem with gas prices. Only the consumer can do that.
Maggotpunk
Posted April 30, 2008 at 2:22 pm | Permalink
See there Amway, it wasn’t that hard was it?
The compromises in my 2:20 pm post were made to weaken the bill - for fellow democrats satisfaction.
Posted April 30, 2008 at 2:22 pm | Permalink
See there Amway, it Maggotpunk
wasn’t that hard was it?
The compromises in my 2:20 pm post were made to weaken the bill - for fellow democrats satisfaction.
Thanks Amway, in deluded Republican land the Republicans happily supported the bill and previous bills to support higher CAFE standards. Just don’t let the cops find out what you are smoking.
Maggot you get a kick out of calling people wrong, but with little reading comprehension ability.
“You’ve claimed people don’t want more fuel efficient cars,”
As I stated 1:36 pm and 1:11 pm. Very clearly.
“and you’ve claimed the majority of people aren’t concerned about the environment.”
And a proven fact that less than 2.2 percent of new car sales are hybrid. Even throwing in the other more efficient cars does not negate the fact that if people TRULY practised what they preached - they would be driving the MOST economical car they could get. Moving from a 20 MPG SUV to a 28 MPG or even 30 MPG does not make one “green”. I am pretty sure Chevy selling it’s new 20MPG Hybrid SUV are appealing to “green” people. However, this vehicle, which markets for 50K is not fuel efficient nor good for the environment when compared to hybrids. (Not stuck on hybrids, but’s the only game out there. Battery/hydrogen are alternatives).
You want to argue facts and right or wrong (and always coming up the one right of course)? Go ahead. But my initial post today says it all.
Oh Amway, do you have to go down the path of dishonesty. As has been pointed out the sales of more efficient vehicles has been increasing and hybrids aren’t the only efficient vehicles on the market. And I’ve already linked to a poll showing the population to be in favor of environmental issues.
The facts have already been presented. You just failed to acknowledge them and had to resort to dishonesty. So utterly typical for a Republican. I’ll leave for work now so maybe in the meantime you can actually check out those links and get an education. Or you can just choose to look more foolish in the future.
Quit trying to protect your party. It is hurting the green movement. I don’t believe I stated I was republican or supported them.
This issue will only be resolved if we get beyond left or right. You want to blame the right. I tried pointing out to you - with facts/quotes/articles that there is plenty of blame to go around.
These blogs go in circles on party loyalty (ie “my dick is bigger than yours” logic).
Nothing dishonest in my posts.
Anyone can join the green bandwagon.
Anyone can SAY they are “concerned w/environment”.
That doesn’t make it truth.
I suppose the new hybrid Chevy SUV (at $50K) is “efficient”?
I disagree with that logic. But go ahead, drink the koolaid. Your party is also joined at the hip with the big three automakers. Just like the other party. They get you to believe anything without thinking.
18 months ago, Pelosi promised the Democrat Congress would do something about gas prices.
That great Energy bill increasing ethanol by what, 500%, is already driving up food prices, gas prices, starving 1 Billion People worldwide, stealing from our water supply…
Great Plan Democrats.
Oil was $61/bbl 18 months ago.
After 1 and a half years of Pelosi & Co, oil has doubled to $120/bbl.
Great Plan Democrats.
Global Warming/Environmentalists should be screaming for a Gas Tax INCREASE!
They should LOVE high prices!
All these supposedly Green People who love the environment, are now the ones complaining about high gas prices.
Can’t put their money where their mouths are.
They want SOMEONE ELSE to pay for Conservation and Global Warming Solutions.
“They want SOMEONE ELSE to pay for Conservation and Global Warming Solutions.”
Amen!
They also want someone else to blame.
Stop Israel and Bush from threatening Iran { a major crude oil supplier } with bombing and the accompanying shortage of oil that causes and the price of gasoline simply goes down.
Of course the Propaganda says otherwise, but that’s why it’s called “propaganda” and that’s why Rice is sucking-up to AIPAC right now.
Remember supply and demand?
Well, it still works that way, and all of the “propaganda” in the world coming out of the Bush White House and Isael won’t change that fact.
“Stop Israel and Bush from threatening Iran”
You might be on to something there Fred. Maybe we will get a nice surprise when the democrat takes charge of the White House (and probably congress).
Maybe oil prices will drop overnight simply because of the lack of tension in the world.
I’d be pleasantly surprised.
I betcha that if the tax was removed to promote folks to drive more miles, thereby driving up demand, we’d be handing the Oil companies an excuse to raise the price way above the current pre-tax amount. I just betcha.
36 highway miles to the gallon for this “liberal”.
My friend in England gets 65 mpg in her lil diesel Smart Car. Even the lean diesel burning full size European cars put American cars to shame.
And, of course, they have excellent trains that are more fuel efficient than you can even imagine.
http://www.fuh2.com/
Well, America is still an undeveloped country…..
See, that’s what the heck we need here, why the F can’t they do that here!
Senator Clinton’s gas tax holiday is paid for with a windfall profits tax on the oil companies.
Those oil companies that have been making record profits?
Capital idea!
Senator McCain HAS no way to pay for his gas tax holiday.
Senator Obama is opposed to the idea entirely.
The truth on gas prices:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/gasprices1
Night all…
There’s an easy way to lower the oil prices, simply stop putting more of it into the Strategic Oil Reserve. The other think would be to reverse the deregulation on commodity trading.
If everyone had the money to buy a new car, of course it would work.
Meanwhile those jobs that make it possible for us to be able to buy a new anything are disappearing at the rate of about 80,000 a month under the current price of gasoline.
Oil Traders are anticipating a shortage of crude oil due to an all-out ME Israeli/Bush driven war.
First things first. Stop that.
If anything the tax on gas needs to be increased to both discourage use of it (let’s be honest we are PIGS when it comes to energy use) and to pay to fix the roads, bridges and add other transit options. If it were up to me there would be a “floating tax” that would insure a minimum price per gallon of $3.50. If the pump price went under that, the tax would kick in and if it was above $3.50, the tax would kick out. In addition CAFE standards would apply to ALL non commercial use vehicles (a “specialty” or “Legacy” exemption could be put in for vehicles that have been in production for 25 years or more such as the Corvette).
If you want a real national energy policy, you need to convene a secret meeting of all the top bus. exec. and let them write one, oops, we already tried that!
3 Trackbacks
Adaline…
) Some individuals or companies have abused the TrackBack feature to insert spam links on some blogs (see sping). (Blogger now has…
Trent University…
This is similar to comment spam but avoids some of the safeguards designed to stop the latter practice. The term is used colloquially…
Trend Trading For A Living…
I would like to be remembered as a man who had a wonderful time living his life, and who had good friends, a fine family. I don’t think I could ask for anything more than that, actually. ~ Frank Sinatra…