Bah

[drjmaxwell]

 Hillary Clinton is back on my shit list.  Stupid Bitch

Right now we run up huge debts by importing large amounts of a strategically crucial, highly-polluting, non-renewable resource from terrorist-financing, extremist, authoritarian regimes using our rapidly depreciating currency. Lowering the price, and thus encouraging more consumption, is BAD.

If

Comments

[demonlord_lover]

When I look at what other countries pay, then look at the charts that show the US not complying with the energy conservation measures the UN had voted on by huge margins ...

I wish, just once, that our country would be a part of the solution rather than a bunch of whiners who only care about the short term effects. I don't even go to Wal-mart anymore because it's 30 miles away, and I'd rather save the gas. Simple things, small changes in our habits, that's all it would take to make a significant difference.

[drjmaxwell]

I'm an agressive driver who likes my V6 engine and drives all over the place by myself without carpooling. I'm not going to change my habits out of goodwill for the environment, cause nobody else does.

Make what I do more expensive, though, and I will change my behavior, and so will everyone else.

[demonlord_lover]

LOL You sound like a sadist - punish you and make you like it.

[patchcat]

Okay. I'm not a politically savvy person and haven't really been following all of this so I'm a little bit confused. She wants to help the economy and do something about gas prices? But she doesn't want to listen to people who know what they're talking about when they tell her how to go about doing it because it might make prices go up? Is that right?

If it is, I have another question. Would these prices keep going up by implementing this plan you're squawkin' about or would they pretty much reach a certain level and plateau?

Oh, yeah. The conspiracy theorist in me -- the really tiny one whose mouth a duct tape shut while I'm sitting on her? Yeah, that one. -- will tell you that alternative fuels will never get off the ground in this country. Why? Because of the government organizations that don't want to lose their precious funds from ripping off the American public and look a lot like the very gas companies who are the real heart of this issue

[drjmaxwell]

She wants to lower prices in the short run by eliminating the gas tax and putting a tax on oil company profits. This is a horrible long term strategy because we need to be decreasing oil consumption...fast...now.

Right now, gasoline is around $3.60 a gallon. Expect it to rise indefinitely.

My "plan" would raise gasoline prices to about $6.60 a gallon. Gas prices would then fall slightly as people cut back on use, and then would start rising again, but more slowly than without the plan.

In the long run (15-25 years out), gas prices would actually be lower with "the plan". Also, with the plan, you don't actually pay more, because your taxes elsewhere are reduced. Without the plan, this doesn't happen, so increases in gas prices are a net loss of social welfare.

If I meet your conspiracy theorist in a back alley, I'm going to beat it to death. Just letting you know.

[ravynstoneabbey]

Cut 40 cents in taxes. Wow. What a nice lady. Bah. I'm seeing it already @ work: People are stocking up and not coming as often, and not driving as much.

I voted for Obama in the primary because I wanted somebody who wasn't a Clinton or a Bush/Bushlike person in the White House.

Though I do agree with a tax on oil company profits. Was muttering something about cutting CEO compensation to cut costs.

[drjmaxwell]

It's only 18 cents. The rest of the 39.6 is state-level taxes. It's total political pandering.

Economists are not a monolithic group of people. Get them all to agree on something and you've achieved something special.

Cutting CEO compensation is something that needs to be handled by shareholders. They decrease their own stock value when they pay their executives that much, and they have the power to change it. The reason these people make assloads of money is because stockholders are willing to pay it to lure them away from other companies. Eventually, they should learn that they're not getting value for their money.

A windfall profits tax on oil companies is economically efficient. Clinton's idea to impose such a tax and use it to finance renewable energy research is a respectable one.

[drjmaxwell]

The funny thing about taxes is that it doesn't matter who you say pays them. The cost ends up being the same.

Take a 10% sales tax. If you make the buyer pay it, then the buyer buys a $1.00 loaf of bread, and then pays $0.10 to the government. If you make the seller pay it, then the buyer buys a $1.10 loaf of bread, and the seller remits $0.10 to the government. Either way, the buyer pays $1.10, the seller receives $1.00, and the government gets $0.10.

So if she makes the oil companies pay it with a per gallon tax, it makes zero difference and it's stupid. If she tries to make up the revenue through a windfall profits tax, which I recall as a suggestion, then gas prices do fall slightly and (see rant).

[alterfano]

i'm with you on this one. tho... am i remembering right that McCain also is calling for repeal? (am too lazy to look it up and trust your encyclopedic knowledge of the issue... perhaps foolishly *looks at icon*)

[drjmaxwell]

McCain called for it first, but given that he admitted that he knows nothing about the economy, I expected no better.

From someone who's running on the back of being an economic genius who will get us back to the prosperity of the Clinton years, it pissed me off.

I'd make you a birthday sparklepost, but that'd use up too many energy. Gotta save that for future generations.

[alterfano]

awwww. it's the thought that counts! thanks;)