Clinton-McCain gas tax holiday slammed as bad idea

[DaKCMan AP]

Clinton-McCain gas tax holiday slammed as bad idea

By Alister Bull 1 hour, 37 minutes ago

<!-- end storyhdr --> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A gas tax holiday proposed by U.S. presidential hopefuls John McCain and Hillary Clinton is viewed as a bad idea by many economists and has drawn unexpected support for Clinton rival Barack Obama, who also is opposed.

"Score one for Obama," wrote Greg Mankiw, a former chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. "In light of the side effects associated with driving ... gasoline taxes should be higher than they are, not lower."

Republican McCain and Democrat Clinton, who is battling Obama for their party's nomination, both want to suspend the 18.4-cents-per-gallon federal gas tax during the peak summer driving months to ease the pain of soaring gas prices. The tax is used to fund the Highway Trust Fund that builds and maintains roads and bridges.

Economists said that since refineries cannot increase their supply of gasoline in the space of a few summer months, lower prices will just boost demand and the benefits will flow to oil companies, not consumers.

"You are just going to push up the price of gas by almost the size of the tax cut," said Eric Toder, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center in Washington.

Obama criticized the plan as pure politics and said the only way to lower the price of gas is to use less oil.

"It would last for three months and it would save you on average half a tank of gas, $25 to $30. That's what Senator Clinton and Senator McCain are proposing to deal with the gas crisis," he said on Tuesday in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

"This isn't an idea designed to get you through the summer, it's an idea designed to get them through an election."

This stance has prompted Clinton to accuse him of being out of touch with ordinary Americans as she campaigns ahead of key presidential nomination contests in North Carolina and Indiana on May 6.

CLINTON AT THE PUMP

The New York senator was commuting to work in South Bend, Indiana, on Wednesday and planned to pump gas at a gas station to draw attention to her plan to suspend the gas tax on consumers and businesses.

"We will pay for it by imposing a windfall profits tax on the big oil companies," she said on Tuesday. "They sure can afford it. This is a big difference in this race. My opponent opposes giving consumers a break from the gas tax but I believe the American people are being squeezed pretty hard."

The cost of a gallon of gasoline has touched $4 in some parts of the country as oil prices nudge toward a record $120 per barrel, hammering drivers at a time when higher food prices and falling home values are already crimping U.S. consumers.

Many economists implicitly agreed with Obama and said the McCain-Clinton gas tax plan sent the wrong signal on energy efficiency and was at odds with their pledges to combat climate change by encouraging lower U.S. carbon emissions.

"I think it is a very bad idea," said Gilbert Metclaf, a economics professor at Tufts University currently working with the National Bureau of Economic Research.

"If we want people to invest in energy-saving cars, we need some assurance that the higher price paid for these cars is going to pay off through fuel savings," he said. "It is a very short-sighted, counterproductive proposal."

Economists also saw it is a poor way of getting money to the households that need it most and warned that it might end up in the cash tills of the oil companies.

"If you want to provide households tax relief, a direct rebate ... is more effective. Not all of the tax relief from a gas tax holiday will be passed on to consumers. Some will likely be kept by refiners," Mankiw said in an e-mail response.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman was similarly underwhelmed: "It's Econ 101: the tax cut really goes to the oil companies," he wrote on his blog on Tuesday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080430/pl_nm/usa_politics_gastax_economists_dc;_ylt=AqUioVwcJ5enPBzBRpH3ORWs0NUE

[mlyonsd]

It is a stupid idea considering that money goes into rebuilding the infrastructure. It's like a usage tax, one that I agree with.

[patteeu]

I don't know if John McCain's proposal to suspend gas taxes is serious or not. I always took it as a rhetorical device used to point out that the government's take on a gallon of gas is even larger than that of big oil. I don't have any expectation that the gas tax will be suspended. Frankly, I think any effort on the part of the government to reduce the price of gas in the short run is counterproductive in one way or another.

[Forward Dante]

I hope (and assume) McCain isn't serious about this gas tax holiday. If he is it definitely hurts my view of him.

[Pitt Gorilla]

It is a stupid idea considering that money goes into rebuilding the infrastructure. It's like a usage tax, one that I agree with.Yup, and our infrastructure is in pretty sad shape.

[Taco John]

I don't know if John McCain's proposal to suspend gas taxes is serious or not. I always took it as a rhetorical device used to point out that the government's take on a gallon of gas is even larger than that of big oil. I don't have any expectation that the gas tax will be suspended. Frankly, I think any effort on the part of the government to reduce the price of gas in the short run is counterproductive in one way or another.

It costs roughly $6.00 to produce a barrel of oil.

[Taco John]

Cut the gas tax entirely and put the construction and maintenance of the road systems entirely on the states.

[StcChief]

Yup, and our infrastructure is in pretty sad shape.
this all started 'late 40s' when Trucks/Roads were demend more important for moving goods than Trains.....

thanks big auto. for wrecking the cheaply built in a hurry roads.

The interstates are no Autobahn.

[banyon]

Cut the gas tax entirely and put the construction and maintenance of the road systems entirely on the states.

It's for federal interstates (partly). The responsibility for maintaining that infrastructure is with the US DOT, and for good reason.

[Taco John]

It's for federal interstates (partly). The responsibility for maintaining that infrastructure is with the US DOT, and for good reason.

There's absolutely no reason that the states can't be tasked with maintaining their portion of this infrastructure. It would be a huge boost for their local economies.

[Calcountry]

Seriously, we should double the gas tax in order to reduce the deficit. We must balance the budget NOW.

Then them tree hugging fools can drive something besides SUV's.

[HolmeZz]

"It would last for three months and it would save you on average half a tank of gas, $25 to $30. That's what Senator Clinton and Senator McCain are proposing to deal with the gas crisis," he said on Tuesday in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

"This isn't an idea designed to get you through the summer, it's an idea designed to get them through an election."

That's a verbal boning.

[patteeu]

It costs roughly $6.00 to produce a barrel of oil.

I don't know what that means. Besides, we're talking about gasoline here, not unrefined oil.

This is a little dated, but it's something I quickly found describing the component costs of retail gasoline:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasolinepricesprimer/images/pump.gif

[oldandslow]

Seriously, we should double the gas tax in order to reduce the deficit. We must balance the budget NOW.

Then them tree hugging fools can drive something besides SUV's.

Agree completely.

[banyon]

There's absolutely no reason that the states can't be tasked with maintaining their portion of this infrastructure. It would be a huge boost for their local economies.

Sure there is. You know what the purpose of the interstate system is, right?

*edit* also, who do you think works on the roads now? It's usually contractors from the area (though they hire a lot of illegals). There's no "federal road work crew". DOT just supervises it.

[J Diddy]

There's absolutely no reason that the states can't be tasked with maintaining their portion of this infrastructure. It would be a huge boost for their local economies.

except that they won't

[Hydrae]

I agree with those that would like an INCREASE in the gasoline taxes. It is crazy that they have that set at a specific amount instead of as a percentage of the price. This tax has not been raised in many, many years while expenses of maintaining the roadways and such have gone up simply via inflation.

And no Taco, I usually am right with you on state's rights but the Interstate system should remain federal IMO.

[Taco John]

Sure there is. You know what the purpose of the interstate system is, right?

Are you talking about the real reason, or the one that they used to sell the idea?

There's absolutely no reason that the states can't be tasked with maintaining their portion of this infrastructure.

[banyon]

Are you talking about the real reason, or the one that they used to sell the idea?

There's absolutely no reason that the states can't be tasked with maintaining their portion of this infrastructure.

ah, I should've known Eisenhower had a conspiracy up his sleeve. Please enlighten us.

[Adept Havelock]

ah, I should've known Eisenhower had a conspiracy up his sleeve. Please enlighten us.

It had nothing to do with National Defense in the face of a global confrontation, on the heels of another which clearly showed how inadequate our internal road net was. That was merely pretense.

It was all part of a plot to make our roadbuilders and pothole fillers march in lockstep under a vast government conspiracy designed to undermine our freedom!!

For the sake of Pete, THE EVIDENCE IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU!!!!!! STOP THE MADNESS!!!!!

[Taco John]

ah, I should've known Eisenhower had a conspiracy up his sleeve. Please enlighten us.


Yeah, I said he had a conspiracy. :rolleyes:

Government doesn't have to have "conspiracy" in mind in order to grab more power for itself. All it needs to do is be "government." The nature of government is always to grab more power for itself, regardless of need.

The Federal government doesn't need to own it, government worshippers. they're not all that good at it. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2007/08/03/LI2007080300854.html)

There's no reason the states cannot manage the roads in their jurisdiction. There's no reason that the federal government should be collecting *any* amount of money in gas taxes.

[banyon]

Yeah, I said he had a conspiracy. :rolleyes:

Government doesn't have to have "conspiracy" in mind in order to grab more power for itself. All it needs to do is be "government." The nature of government is always to grab more power for itself, regardless of need.

Uh, you just posted it .

Are you talking about the real reason, or the one that they used to sell the idea?

The government planned to deceive the public to accomplish another goal. That's the definition of a government conspiracy. It's cool that you want to disown it now, you overreached.

Trying to blame the Minneapolis bridge collapse on federalism is a stretch too.
Plenty of state bridges collapse or fail, along with the failure of local responses to Katrina. Tragedies aren't usually a good opportunity to trumpet states' rights.

There's no reason the states cannot manage the roads in their jurisdiction. There's no reason that the federal government should be collecting *any* amount of money in gas taxes.

Of course there's more than *no* reason. The purpose of the interstate highway system is to be able to quickly mobilize military forces to different regions in case of attack. If Mississippi or Idaho has a bunch of people like TABOR who don't want to pay state taxes either, then that infrastructure might not be there when the Federal government needs it in a critical mobilization. Fining the state at that point may be too little too late.

[Adept Havelock]

Uh, you just posted it .

Are you talking about the real reason, or the one that they used to sell the idea?


The government planned to deceive the public to accomplish another goal. That's the definition of a government conspiracy. It's cool that you want to disown it now, you overreached.

LMAO :clap:



Of course there's more than *no* reason. The purpose of the interstate highway system is to be able to quickly mobilize military forces to different regions in case of attack. If Mississippi or Idaho has a bunch of people like TABOR who don't want to pay state taxes either, then that infrastructure might not be there when the Federal government needs it in a critical mobilization. Fining the state at that point may be too little too late.

Hey, if a major city in a state where anti-taxation folks dominate gets hit with a WMD and doesn't have the infrastructure to support the relief effort, shouldn't we just let them die off as an example to the others?

Of course, there's no need for a Federal relief effort either, so if they can't organize one from what their state (and any others they can convince to help) can pony up, they should probably be left for dead for that reason as well.[/modest proposal]

[Guru]

It's .18 cents. Whats the point? That is a drop in the bucket nowadays. Just leave it alone. Hell, my van rarely leaves the garage now as it is.

[WoodDraw]

I agree with those that would like an INCREASE in the gasoline taxes. It is crazy that they have that set at a specific amount instead of as a percentage of the price. This tax has not been raised in many, many years while expenses of maintaining the roadways and such have gone up simply via inflation.

And no Taco, I usually am right with you on state's rights but the Interstate system should remain federal IMO.

Yep. Gas is already heavily subsidized in this country, both through direct subsidies and tax breaks, and indirectly by the costs of gas use being picked up though general revenues and not a consumption tax. Raise the price of gas to reflect the trust costs of driving a car.

[Logical]

Yeah, I said he had a conspiracy. :rolleyes:

Government doesn't have to have "conspiracy" in mind in order to grab more power for itself. All it needs to do is be "government." The nature of government is always to grab more power for itself, regardless of need.

The Federal government doesn't need to own it, government worshippers. they're not all that good at it. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2007/08/03/LI2007080300854.html)

There's no reason the states cannot manage the roads in their jurisdiction. There's no reason that the federal government should be collecting *any* amount of money in gas taxes.

Based on my travels, states like California, Nevada, Arizona would have great interstates because we already put more money into our infrastructures than most. Missoui, Kansas, Illinois and other midwestern states would fall into disarray as weather is disastrous for the road and interstate systems and they are not setup to deal with the state tax load. Other states would handle it with relative good and bad results. Bad Idea IMO.

[Taco John]

Based on my travels, states like California, Nevada, Arizona would have great interstates because we already put more money into our infrastructures than most. Missoui, Kansas, Illinois and other midwestern states would fall into disarray as weather is disastrous for the road and interstate systems and they are not setup to deal with the state tax load. Other states would handle it with relative good and bad results. Bad Idea IMO.



I'm fully aware that people don't think that economics is what should be the driving force when it comes to local maintenance. That's why we'll waste billions of federal dollars rebuilding a city in Louisiana located below the sea level. Or roads in places that can't economically justify them - while raising taxes on people and hurting the poorest among them in the process.

If a local state can't maintain the roads in thier land, it's simple: they sell them to someone who can. There's a lot of money in the construction and maintenance of a road system. This starry-eyed fantasy that only big government can handle the responsibility defies reality. Government, especially the Federal government, doesn't do a great job. The reason being, they don't have to. They just have to maintain a government standard of "acceptable."

And it's not a conspiracy to say that the government always does anything it can to claim more power for itself. This is simply a political law in the same way that gravity is a law of physics.

[banyon]

And it's not a conspiracy to say that the government always does anything it can to claim more power for itself. This is simply a political law in the same way that gravity is a law of physics.

Great. You didn't say that. You said this:

Are you talking about the real reason, or the one that they used to sell the idea?

i.e., there was a "fake reason" and a deception. Own your words.

I also note you didn't address the military aspect of this that I raised AT ALL, likely because it doesn't fit with the absolutist anti-government rant.

[Taco John]

Great. You didn't say that. You said this:



i.e., there was a "fake reason" and a deception. Own your words.


I have no problem owning *my* words. It's your words that I'm not owning. Is it a conspiracy when government tries to take over health care, using every excuse they possibly can to get their hands on the program and the subsequent taxing that will need to go along with it? What do they say? "It's for the kids!" That's not a conspiracy - that's the government trying to sell the idea so that they can gain power. Don't shove words in my mouth and then tell me to own them.


I also note you didn't address the military aspect of this that I raised AT ALL, likely because it doesn't fit with the absolutist anti-government rant.

That's because it's stupid. Nobody is invading this country. They never were. I'm just as worried about terrorists taking over the country as anyone should ever have been about Russia staging an invasion. It's a ridiculous thought - the logistics of such an invasion are a nightmare. The Interstate Highway system is about commerce and taxation. Fine, I'm ok with it. Build it. But when you're done, give the roads to the state and let the state maintain it. And if the state can't maintain it, then let them sell it off to the highest bidder -- they'll sure as hell maintain it. There's a lot of money in roads - which is why the government wants it in the first place. They know they only have to keep it "adequate" for transport. They know that they can use those funds for other pet projects.

The government's #1 mode of operation: to remove people from their wealth, and claim it for themselves. It's been like this since it was first invented.

[banyon]

I have no problem owning *my* words. It's your words that I'm not owning. Is it a conspiracy when government tries to take over health care, using every excuse they possibly can to get their hands on the program and the subsequent taxing that will need to go along with it? What do they say? "It's for the kids!" That's not a conspiracy - that's the government trying to sell the idea so that they can gain power. Don't shove words in my mouth and then tell me to own them.

Who's shoving words in your mouth? I quoted you. Is the quote somehow inaccurate? Maybe tell us the fake reason and the one they used to sell it (explain yourself) instead of all of this backpeddaling and we might get somewhere.

I also have no idea why you neg repped me over this except I guess your ideology is so deficient that it can't stand on its own merit. I guess when logic fails...


That's because it's stupid. Nobody is invading this country. They never were. I'm just as worried about terrorists taking over the country as anyone should ever have been about Russia staging an invasion. It's a ridiculous thought - the logistics of such an invasion are a nightmare. The Interstate Highway system is about commerce and taxation. Fine, I'm ok with it. Build it. But when you're done, give the roads to the state and let the state maintain it. And if the state can't maintain it, then let them sell it off to the highest bidder -- they'll sure as hell maintain it. There's a lot of money in roads - which is why the government wants it in the first place. They know they only have to keep it "adequate" for transport. They know that they can use those funds for other pet projects.

Of course no one is invading our country right now. It's infrastructure in case there's a time in the future when someone does. Of course it's not just about invasion. There are plenty of times when there are emergencies or disasters that require the military or FEMA to react. Don't be so obtuse.

Also, I'm not sure where you're getting this "let's let the states maintain it" stuff. I think the states currently do maintain it. Check out this site (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/im.htm)from the Federal Highway Administration. It's why I-70 sucks through Missouri and finally is free of bumps when you get into Kansas. The government just provides some of the matching funds out of the gas tax.

[Adept Havelock]

Of course no one is invading our country right now. It's infrastructure in case there's a time in the future when someone does. Of course it's not just about invasion. There are plenty of times when there are emergencies or disasters that require the military or FEMA to react. Don't be so obtuse.


Like I said, it's not like the federal interstate infrastructure would be of any benefit in supporting the relief effort if a large city gets taken out by a WMD. [/sarcasm]

Of course, we would probably see it coming because all nuclear weapons are still massive first generation constructs. ;)

[Taco John]

Who's shoving words in your mouth? I quoted you. Is the quote somehow inaccurate? Maybe tell us the fake reason and the one they used to sell it (explain yourself) instead of all of this backpeddaling and we might get somewhere. [/qutoe]

Are you not able to read or something? I just did in my last post.

[quote]Of course no one is invading our country right now.

Or ever. It was a make-believe threat. No one was ever invading our country. The logistics for such a thing are a nightmare. It wasn't going to happen now... It wouldn't have happened then... It's a non-issue. It makes for a good argument because it plays on people's fears. But I'm not going to pretend that it was ever a real threat.


Also, I'm not sure where you're getting this "let's let the states maintain it" stuff. I think the states currently domaintain it. Check out this site (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/im.htm)from the Federal Highway Administration. It's why I-70 sucks through Missouri and finally is free of bumps when you get into Kansas. The government just provides some of the matching funds out of the gas tax.

You're missing the whole heart of this discussion, which is the federal gasoline tax. Government uses those funds to lord power over the states. If they don't comply, they don't get funds. Just ask any state who tried to maintain a drinking age of 19.

[banyon]

[QUOTE=banyon;4729324]Who's shoving words in your mouth? I quoted you. Is the quote somehow inaccurate? Maybe tell us the fake reason and the one they used to sell it (explain yourself) instead of all of this backpeddaling and we might get somewhere. [/qutoe]

Are you not able to read or something? I just did in my last post.



Or ever. It was a make-believe threat. No one was ever invading our country. The logistics for such a thing are a nightmare. It wasn't going to happen now... It wouldn't have happened then... It's a non-issue. It makes for a good argument because it plays on people's fears. But I'm not going to pretend that it was ever a real threat.

Ok. Ignore the point about emergencies and pretend there's no need for the federal government to be able to respond. It's easier to persuade people when you pretend parts of a discussion didn't occur I guess. It seems to have become a regular habit with you.


You're missing the whole heart of this discussion, which is the federal gasoline tax. Government uses those funds to lord power over the states. If they don't comply, they don't get funds. Just ask any state who tried to maintain a drinking age of 19.

No one's "missing the heart of this discussion". You raised the irrelevant red herring of states not maintaining the roads and I corrected you on it. It's no big deal, you were just mistaken about it.

They're free to refuse the funds, which Louisiana did for many years. There's no requirement that they take the money. Contact your state legislator and tell him to start the bill refusing federal highway money and see how far you get.

[jettio]

Clinton and McCain are both in the US Senate right now.

I am frustrated by the fact that the press does not ask each of them why they have not drafted the bill and introduced it into the Senate in time for it to be passed before Memorial Day.

Hillary needs to put her idea in writing and see how far she can sell her idea to get McCain's gas tax holiday paid for with a windfall profits tax.

It frustrates me that the press allows her to sell this on the campaign trail withiout asking her the obvious question of why she has not introduced the bill.

She is suggesting to voters that she will get them a gas tax holiday this year and pay for it by taxing the oil companies, yet she has not done what she would have to do to make good on her promise.

[Taco John]

They're free to refuse the funds, which Louisiana did for many years. There's no requirement that they take the money. Contact your state legislator and tell him to start the bill refusing federal highway money and see how far you get.

You get more and more dishonest in your debate by the day.

[BucEyedPea]

I don't know if John McCain's proposal to suspend gas taxes is serious or not. I always took it as a rhetorical device used to point out that the government's take on a gallon of gas is even larger than that of big oil. I don't have any expectation that the gas tax will be suspended. Frankly, I think any effort on the part of the government to reduce the price of gas in the short run is counterproductive in one way or another.

Mac is pandering.

[dirk digler]

Clinton and McCain are both in the US Senate right now.

I am frustrated by the fact that the press does not ask each of them why they have not drafted the bill and introduced it into the Senate in time for it to be passed before Memorial Day.

Hillary needs to put her idea in writing and see how far she can sell her idea to get McCain's gas tax holiday paid for with a windfall profits tax.

It frustrates me that the press allows her to sell this on the campaign trail withiout asking her the obvious question of why she has not introduced the bill.

She is suggesting to voters that she will get them a gas tax holiday this year and pay for it by taxing the oil companies, yet she has not done what she would have to do to make good on her promise.

This issue seems to be a semi hot issue in the campaign and this further distinguishes why Obama is the the better candidate then the other 2 idiots running. I don't think there has been one economist to say this is a good idea in fact everyone is saying this is a horrible idea. Mayor Bloomberg just came today and said it was stupid.

But to answer your question Jettio the reason why Hillary won't do that is because she is a liar and a panderer.

[xbarretx]

Cut the gas tax entirely and put the construction and maintenance of the road systems entirely on the states.

you obviously dont drive I-70 ... if you had you'd realize that hte swiss cheese road makes it seem like the maintenance IS on the state and they choose to ignore it :shake:

p.s. i agree with you regardless of my smartass comment.

[Taco John]

you obviously dont drive I-70 ... if you had you'd realize that hte swiss cheese road makes it seem like the maintenance IS on the state and they choose to ignore it :shake:

p.s. i agree with you regardless of my smartass comment.


Only about 45% of our national highway system is classified as in "good" condition... Though about 90% is classified as "acceptable." Sounds like you live in an area where "acceptable" is "good" enough.

I'm not saying the road system would be perfect if the states were given full authority to maintain the roads in their state. What I am saying, though, is that it would be superior to the centrally planned economic system that we have now where states allow their roads and infrastructure to deteriorate while waiting for their pork barrel to come in from Washington.

[ClevelandBronco]

...The purpose of the interstate highway system is to be able to quickly mobilize military forces to different regions in case of attack...

Thank goodness Iraq had such a well developed interstate highway system. Otherwise our mobilization may have suffered in the first days of the war.

[jettio]

This issue seems to be a semi hot issue in the campaign and this further distinguishes why Obama is the the better candidate then the other 2 idiots running. I don't think there has been one economist to say this is a good idea in fact everyone is saying this is a horrible idea. Mayor Bloomberg just came today and said it was stupid.

But to answer your question Jettio the reason why Hillary won't do that is because she is a liar and a panderer.


It is amazing to me that the press does not ask her about her plans to introduce the bill in the Senate in time for Memorial Day.

The press is acting like a vote for Hillary will get the people that voted for her a tax holiday paid for by a windfall profits tax.

The press should call her and McCain out on this.

[patteeu]

Mac is pandering.

Yes, I think so too.

[patteeu]

This issue seems to be a semi hot issue in the campaign and this further distinguishes why Obama is the the better candidate then the other 2 idiots running. I don't think there has been one economist to say this is a good idea in fact everyone is saying this is a horrible idea. Mayor Bloomberg just came today and said it was stupid.

But to answer your question Jettio the reason why Hillary won't do that is because she is a liar and a panderer.

Obama has a slew of horrible ideas to make up for not having this one.

[banyon]

You get more and more dishonest in your debate by the day.

This is your new thread tack?

What's dishonest about anything I've posted in this thread?

[banyon]

I'm not saying the road system would be perfect if the states were given full authority to maintain the roads in their state. What I am saying, though, is that it would be superior to the centrally planned economic system that we have now where states allow their roads and infrastructure to deteriorate while waiting for their pork barrel to come in from Washington.

What evidence supports this contention?

State highways and County roads are generally in inferior condition to the Federally funded interstates while they wait on the money from the state pork barrel to come in from Boise, Jefferson City, Topeka, whatever.

[ClevelandBronco]

This is your new thread tact?

What's dishonest about anything I've posted in this thread?

Tack. Not tact.

Tactic, maybe.

[ClevelandBronco]

What evidence supports this contention?

State highways and County roads are generally in inferior condition to the Federally funded interstates while they wait on the money from the state pork barrel to come in from Boise, Jefferson City, Topeka, whatever.

The feds tax far more than the states. Reverse the situation and you'd see a different picture.

[banyon]

Tack. Not tact.

Tactic, maybe.

You're right.

(see how easy that was, Taco?)

[banyon]

The feds tax far more than the states. Reverse the situation and you'd see a different picture.

I don't think that speaks to efficiency, which is his argument.

[dirk digler]

Obama has a slew of horrible ideas to make up for not having this one.

Maybe in your mind but at least he is not pandering to people in the middle of a gas crisis.

[ClevelandBronco]

I don't think that speaks to efficiency, which is his argument.

It speaks to more local control, which is part of his philosophy.

[banyon]

It speaks to more local control, which is part of his philosophy.

Right. But I had been asking about the evidence which would support that philosophy, much like when I ask for any evidence that countries with local control of education fare better or that countries or states with low taxation rates fare better economically.

I understand that it won't be forthcoming, since it is mostly from utopian-styled sentiments.

[patteeu]

Maybe in your mind but at least he is not pandering to people in the middle of a gas crisis.

What gas crisis?

Besides, which is worse, pandering to people about gas prices or pandering to them about the war in Iraq?

[WoodDraw]

What gas crisis?

Besides, which is worse, pandering to people about gas prices or pandering to them about the war in Iraq?

I concede that people disagree on the war in Iraq. I don't consider it pandering on either side, regardless of each side's emotion.

The gas proposal has no economic supports. Maybe a few libertarian or neo-anarchists might like it, but every other rational, educated person views it as illogical and with no economic backing. Clinton and McCain are both attempting to gain lower and middle class votes by offering a 'solution' that sounds attractive, yet has no chance of providing results or even being implemented. That's pandering.

[patteeu]

I concede that people disagree on the war in Iraq. I don't consider it pandering on either side, regardless of each side's emotion.

The gas proposal has no economic supports. Maybe a few libertarian or neo-anarchists might like it, but every other rational, educated person views it as illogical and with no economic backing. Clinton and McCain are both attempting to gain lower and middle class votes by offering a 'solution' that sounds attractive, yet has no chance of providing results or even being implemented. That's pandering.

It depends on what Obama really thinks about Iraq. If he's really dedicated to withdrawal no matter what the consequences to the region, then he's not pandering when he attempts to convince people that he's the anti-war candidate. If, as I believe, he'll fail to come close to meeting the expectations of his anti-war constituency even as he continues to give them reason to form those expectations in the first place, he's pandering.

[banyon]

What gas crisis?

Besides, which is worse, pandering to people about gas prices or pandering to them about the war in Iraq?

What gas crisis?

These folks would beg to differ:

Truckers rally in Washington to protest high fuel prices
By BRETT ZONGKER – 2 days ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Truck drivers honked horns, waved placards and shouted through bullhorns at the Capitol on Monday to protest rising fuel prices they say are hurting their livelihood.

Members of Truckers and Citizens United circled the National Mall before parking their rigs at RFK Stadium. From there, about 100 protesters marched and took shuttles to the Capitol, where an afternoon rally was held.

"The high price for oil is hurting our economy," organizer Mark Kirsch said. "It's hurting middle class people."

The national average price of a gallon of regular gasoline is a record $3.51, according to a recent survey of stations by AAA and the Oil Price Information Service. The price for diesel — used to transport most food, industrial and commercial goods — is $4.20 a gallon.

Dave Gares, an independent trucker from Lebanon, Pa., said the $1,400 it costs to fill up his tractor-trailer with 220 gallons of diesel fuel has been a drain on his income.

William Lockridge of the Washington Metropolitan Area Truckers Association said independent truckers are barely breaking even. "If the truck stops, the economy stops," he said.

The truckers are urging Congress to stop subsidizing big oil companies, release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves, and end exports of oil from Alaska, among other things.

One passenger circling the Mall held a sign that read "Enough is Enough," and a driver used a bullhorn to yell at Congress as he passed by.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who met with members of Truckers and Citizens United, said it's clear the truckers are suffering.

"It's particularly heartbreaking to hear their stories, because not only is there an economic slow down, which means they are hauling less," but a surge in diesel prices adds more burdens, he said.

Nathan and Tara Horn of Normal, Ill., said they were visiting museums and other sites, but came to the Capitol to see the truckers' protest.

"Just knowing the influence that our citizens have to talk to our congressmen and senators ... This is awesome," said Nathan Horn, stopping to watch the trucks pass in the rain."

Traffic was not significantly affected by the convoy of vehicles, though a few truckers drove through red lights as they honked their horns.

A similar protest in Pierre, S.D., drew about a dozen trucks. An organizer said drivers decided not to attend because they couldn't afford the diesel.

Truck drivers are planning a similar protest Thursday in New York City and another unspecified event May 5. Organizers said Wall Street is responsible for driving up prices with no regulation from Congress.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h754857XlNi4En4IBAv5GxRgEYhQD90B8G0G0

[WoodDraw]

It depends on what Obama really thinks about Iraq. If he's really dedicated to withdrawal no matter what the consequences to the region, then he's not pandering when he attempts to convince people that he's the anti-war candidate. If, as I believe, he'll fail to come close to meeting the expectations of his anti-war constituency even as he continues to give them reason to form those expectations in the first place, he's pandering.

Ehh, I get bored with trying to put words in candidates mouths. It's one thing to criticize a universally abhorred idea, and another to make up random theories for political enjoyment.

But anyway, we're getting off topic. Let's return to rejoicing in the joint economic incompetence of two of our leading Presidential candidates.

[WoodDraw]

What gas crisis?

These folks would beg to differ:

Truckers rally in Washington to protest high fuel prices
By BRETT ZONGKER – 2 days ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Truck drivers honked horns, waved placards and shouted through bullhorns at the Capitol on Monday to protest rising fuel prices they say are hurting their livelihood.


Isn't trucking one of the most successful industries right now?

Anyway, gas prices are an inherent cost in the trucking industry. It's like a jeweler complaining about the high price of gold. Price fluctuation will happen with any commodity, especially a scarce one like oil. I'm not sure what we can do, unless you're hiding quite a bit of oil underneath your back lawn.

[dirk digler]

What gas crisis?

Besides, which is worse, pandering to people about gas prices or pandering to them about the war in Iraq?

The gas crisis that is happening now. Did you see the guy on O'Reilly's show last week who stated that next year gas could be $6 a gallon? People are hurting big time because of the huge jump in prices.

I don't think Obama has or is pandering about Iraq. He has been consistent on his views to withdraw though he does leave a little wiggle room in case it all goes to hell when we pull out. Hillary on the other hand has flipped flopped on this issue at least a dozen times.

[Taco John]

I don't think that speaks to efficiency, which is his argument.


Efficiency isn't my argument at all. Efficiency is just a by-product of it. If I have a problem, it's much easier for me to talk to a local representative than to go to DC to get ignored. As a citizen, I have a lot more power over a local representative than an out of touch DC bureaucrat. That's efficient. Also, if a highway system is economically viable, then the state will maintain it as such. If it's not, then they wont. That's efficient. Of course we know that every state relies on these interstate systems for commerce, so the states would find ways to keep them in good operating condition. And if they can't, then they can sell the roads to someone who can.

[banyon]

Efficiency isn't my argument at all. Efficiency is just a by-product of it. If I have a problem, it's much easier for me to talk to a local representative than to go to DC to get ignored. As a citizen, I have a lot more power over a local representative than an out of touch DC bureaucrat. That's efficient. Also, if a highway system is economically viable, then the state will maintain it as such. If it's not, then they wont. That's efficient. Of course we know that every state relies on these interstate systems for commerce, so the states would find ways to keep them in good operating condition. And if they can't, then they can sell the roads to someone who can.

If they can't more than commerce is at stake, which is why it's a public good that should be maintained as such.

[dirk digler]

What Clinton is doing is outright pandering

Not mentioned on the conference call, but making its way around the Internet on Thursday, was a story from Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign in New York, when she came out in opposition to a gas tax holiday.
It is "a bad deal for New York and a potential bonanza for the oil companies," Clinton said of her Republican opponent Rick Lazio's plan to repeal 4.3 cents of the gas tax.

[Taco John]

If they can't more than commerce is at stake, which is why it's a public good that should be maintained as such.

No one said it shouldn't be maintained. In fact, the argument has been that it would be maintained.

Also, a Superhighway going from Florida to New York is the business of the states involved in its construction. People in Cleveland, Idaho, Wyoming, shouldn't have to bear the costs of such a thing. Even for make-believe reasons like national defense and disaster response from Washington (which by the way is the dumbest argument yet). :rolleyes:

[banyon]

No one said it shouldn't be maintained. In fact, the argument has been that it would be maintained.

No one said that someone said it shouldn't be maintained. You argued that states would do a better job of maintaining them (evidently on some faith-based notion), and I argued that they would do a poorer job and that it's not an area the Federal government can allow States to bear all of the responsibility of on a trial and error basis. Then you called me dishonest because I guess it was better than offering evidence to support your contention.

Perhaps, in lieu of further misconstrual of the thread you could just neg rep me again and make yourself feel like you somehow had a persuasive point.

Also, a Superhighway going from Florida to New York is the business of the states involved in its construction. People in Cleveland, Idaho, Wyoming, shouldn't have to bear the costs of such a thing. Even for make-believe reasons like national defense and disaster response from Washington (which by the way is the dumbest argument yet). :rolleyes:
National defense and disaster preparedness is make-believe got it

People from Cleveland, Idaho, and Wyoming benefit from the road, it's not immoral that they bear some of the cost.

[ClevelandBronco]

...People from Cleveland, Idaho, and Wyoming benefit from the road, it's not immoral that they bear some of the cost.

Well, the people from Idaho and Wyoming can all go to hell.

[patteeu]

Ehh, I get bored with trying to put words in candidates mouths. It's one thing to criticize a universally abhorred idea, and another to make up random theories for political enjoyment.

But anyway, we're getting off topic. Let's return to rejoicing in the joint economic incompetence of two of our leading Presidential candidates.

Whatever. A gas tax holiday isn't a universally abhorred idea. If it were, then supporting it would be the opposite of pandering.

I guess it's OK if you want to make your political calculations at the superficial level instead of trying to understand what these politicians really think based on the way they hedge with their language and the clues we get from who they pick as advisers and what those advisers say, but in my experience that's not the most satisfying way to participate in the process. After a while feeling betrayed because you didn't recognize the warning signs starts to suck.

[patteeu]

The gas crisis that is happening now. Did you see the guy on O'Reilly's show last week who stated that next year gas could be $6 a gallon? People are hurting big time because of the huge jump in prices.

I don't think Obama has or is pandering about Iraq. He has been consistent on his views to withdraw though he does leave a little wiggle room in case it all goes to hell when we pull out. Hillary on the other hand has flipped flopped on this issue at least a dozen times.

Gas prices have been at or near that level for a long time in Europe. We've been fortunate here in the US to have had a holiday from energy price inflation for a couple of decades now. It sucks, but I just don't consider it a crisis. We'll adjust.

As for Obama, consistency is one of the last words I'd associate with his Iraq position. First he was opposed to the invasion, then according to Obama himself his position was virtually indistinguishable from that of GWBush, and now he's back to wanting to withdraw. Somewhere in there he wanted to stay in Iraq but stay out of Iraqi cities too. And of course, he's supported funding for continued operations at every critical juncture. I'm sure that if I bothered to look it up there were a couple of other flips and flops along the way, but you get the idea. I know you've been exposed to the facts on this. Your standing by your candidate reminds me of Obama standing by Reverend Wright prior to his Press Club talk.

I agree that after remaining consistent long enough to really hurt her campaign, she finally caved and flip flopped on the issue. If you're looking for a candidate who's been consistent on Iraq, you're only choice is to look across the aisle at John McCain.

[Taco John]

Perhaps, in lieu of further misconstrual of the thread you could just neg rep me again and make yourself feel like you somehow had a persuasive point.




If you are truly ignorant of why I neg repped you, then chances are that I'm in error for doing that.

[banyon]

If you are truly ignorant of why I neg repped you, then chances are that I'm in error for doing that.

Fair enough. I have no clue why you neg repped that post.

[Adept Havelock]

Even for make-believe reasons like national defense and disaster response from Washington (which by the way is the dumbest argument yet). :rolleyes:

Heh. Actually, the dumbest argument in this thread is getting rid of the Federal Interstate system and turning it over to the individual states.

So tell me, if your strict anti-federalist approach is so wonderful for a modern, industrialized, high technology society, why is it no nation fitting that description anywhere on the planet operates under it?

Sounds like a complete failure to compete in the international marketplace of ideas to me. :shrug:

I'm with you on many points regarding States Rights, but I think you are way off base on this one.

[Taco John]

Fair enough. I have no clue why you neg repped that post.

In that case, I apologize.

[Taco John]

Heh. Actually, the dumbest argument in this thread is getting rid of the Federal Interstate system and turning it over to the individual states.

Whoever made the argument to get rid of it - you and I should team up to laugh at that person. Who was it?

[Adept Havelock]

Whoever made the argument to get rid of it - you and I should team up to laugh at that person. Who was it?

Don't be a jackass. You know what I meant from the last half of my statement, even if I chose those two words poorly enough to give you room for a purposeful misinterpretation. Banyon's right, you have a habit of ignoring parts of other peoples posts so you can twist their meaning.

I might be that way too, I suppose, if I continually ranted a fringe political view of hard anti-federalism that no modern nation thinks worthwhile enough to operate under. As they aren't, it must not be that great, at least according to competition in the marketplace of ideas. :D

edit- Asking a donko fan not to be a jackass? I must need sleep more than I thought. http://b.imagehost.org/0640/deepsleep.gif

[Taco John]

It's not much of a premise - "other nations aren't doing it, so obviously it doesn't work." Other nations were ruled by Monarchies while we formed our own Republican Democracy. That doesn't mean that our form of government lacked merit.

I understand that the rest of the world leans towards socialism. I also understand that I don't want to see our country sucked down with them when their currency inflates and their economies collapse. There's more than enough evidence throughout history that fiat dollars are doomed to die.

[Taco John]

Don't be a jackass. You know what I meant from the last half of my statement, even if I chose those two words poorly enough to give you room for a purposeful misinterpretation.

Oh, and... Own your words.

I didn't say we should get rid of the interstate system. I said we should get rid of the federal gas tax.

[Saggysack]

FTC to launch plan for policing oil industry
BY LES BLUMENTHAL
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - The Federal Trade Commission will announce today its plan for investigating and regulating possible market manipulation by oil companies, traders and others, a Democratic senator said Thursday.

Under legislation passed late last year, violators could face fines of $1 million a day.

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said the best way to bring down the price of gasoline at the pump is for the administration to start seriously policing the oil industry.

"The jury is still out on how tough the FTC will be," Cantwell said. "We see smoke. We need the FTC to determine whether there is a fire."

The legislation that Congress approved in December granted the FTC powers to investigate petroleum markets. Cantwell sponsored the legislation and has been the Democratic leader on many energy issues over the past several years.

Last month, she called on the FTC to stop delaying and launch an investigation into oil prices, and more recently she asked the Justice Department to create a special task force to look at whether sky-high crude oil and gasoline prices are the result of market manipulation.

Cantwell said there was no reason for gasoline prices to be up 100 percent in a year and headed for the $4 a gallon mark when there's been no disruption in supply and U.S. demand has cooled.

Following the 2000-01 West Coast energy crisis, when electricity prices rose steeply, Congress gave the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the power to investigate market manipulation in the electricity and natural gas industries, Cantwell said. Since then, FERC has conducted 64 investigations resulting in settlements worth $40 million and has pushed two enforcement actions that netted nearly $460 million in civil penalties.

"It showed there was manipulation in the natural gas and electricity markets, and we want to make sure the oil markets are policed," Cantwell said. "Consumers want to know the Bush administration will do something."

The FTC had no immediate comment.

On Capitol Hill, there's been talk of suspending the 18.4 cents per gallon federal gasoline tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day. The likely Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, first proposed the idea. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton also supports it.

Congress also is discussing whether to halt or slow the filling of the National Petroleum Reserve, which is supposed to hold enough oil to meet the nation's needs for two months.

But Cantwell said that the petroleum reserve is already 97 percent full and that halting or slowing further purchases for it isn't a long-term solution. As for the gas tax holiday, she said, there were no guarantees that consumers would see pump prices fall.

[banyon]

I understand that the rest of the world leans towards socialism. I also understand that I don't want to see our country sucked down with them when their currency inflates and their economies collapse. There's more than enough evidence throughout history that fiat dollars are doomed to die.

Why advocate unregulated free market policies then that tie our fate closer to theirs every day?

And don't we have fiat money too? Why is theirs worse than ours? Lately, it's been much better than ours.

[Adept Havelock]

It's not much of a premise - "other nations aren't doing it, so obviously it doesn't work."
ROFL

Like any idea, if it's sufficently worthwhile it will rise to the top of the marketplace of ideas, and be adopted, used, and respected accordingly. As your contemporary hard anti-federalist approach hasn't been adopted by any modern industrial nation anywhere in the world, it clearly suffers from a failure to compete in that marketplace on its own merits.

If an idea can't successfully compete in the marketplace of ideas, it must not be very useful or worthwhile.

At least that's what I was always taught about the marketplace of ideas.

I guess you can keep blaming "The Man" for keeping it down though. LMAO

Oh, and... Own your words.
I already admitted I chose my words poorly enough to permit you an opening for purposeful misinterpretation. What do you want — egg in your beer?

I didn't say we should get rid of the interstate system. I said we should get rid of the federal gas tax.
You may have started with getting rid of the federal gas tax, but as usual your anti-federalist rant ended in a blanket condemnation of federal control. Then you repeatedly suggested transferring fiscal responsibility for the interstate system entirely to the States.
There's absolutely no reason that the states can't be tasked with maintaining their portion of this infrastructure.

I'm not saying the road system would be perfect if the states were given full authority to maintain the roads in their state. What I am saying, though, is that it would be superior to the centrally planned economic system that we have now where states allow their roads and infrastructure to deteriorate while waiting for their pork barrel to come in from Washington.
Incidentally, if we were foolish enough to enact your suggestion, that would effectively "get rid" of the federal interstate system, as we would then have a collection of larger state highways.

Thus, my statement "getting rid of the federal interstate system and transferring [financial responsibility for] it to the states. I'll also point out the [financial responsibility for] while not directly stated, was clearly implied to anyone with two neurons firing in sequence who had been following the conversation. :shrug:

Again, nice job ignoring a chunk of the post for another oh-so-creative misinterpretation. Bravo. :clap:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xp9852hq0W0&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xp9852hq0W0&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[BucEyedPea]

The interstate highway system is really the state's. The fed's get involved for taxation purposes and regulation of commerce.

[Taco John]

Again, nice job ignoring a chunk of the post for another oh-so-creative misinterpretation. Bravo. :clap:


Which chunk? As far as I can tell, you're just making this up to have something to say.

[Adept Havelock]

Which chunk? As far as I can tell, you're just making this up to have something to say.

ROFL

1) The role the "marketplace of ideas" plays in other nations rejecting your contemporary hard anti-federalist approach. And of course, the utter and complete failure of the idea you advocate to successfully compete in that marketplace. After all, if had successfully competed, one would think at least one modern industrial nation somewhere in the world would be operating under it.

I suppose your fringe contemporary anti-federalism shouldn't have to compete in that marketplace to be shown as having merit, but simply be praised by all as the ideal system. http://b.imagehost.org/0646/crazy.gif

2) The "federal" part of my comment about getting rid of the "federal" interstate system, and transferring it to the states.

I suppose I gave your comprehension skills too much credit. I'll make allowances in the future, as I do in the face of your lack of comprehension of falsifiability and it's place in the Scientific Method.

[banyon]

The interstate highway system is really the state's. The fed's get involved for taxation purposes and regulation of commerce.

Well this resolved everything. :shake:

[BucEyedPea]

Gas prices have been at or near that level for a long time in Europe. We've been fortunate here in the US to have had a holiday from energy price inflation for a couple of decades now. It sucks, but I just don't consider it a crisis. We'll adjust.
Not apples and oranges though. Their situation is different. A small landmass where things are much closer. Smaller cars, more use of rail and they ride bikes a lot which you can do when things are closer. They don't need as much as we do. We have a larger land mass with things more spread out save for an area like NE who will fare better.

As for Obama, consistency is one of the last words I'd associate with his Iraq position. First he was opposed to the invasion, then according to Obama himself his position was virtually indistinguishable from that of GWBush, and now he's back to wanting to withdraw. Somewhere in there he wanted to stay in Iraq but stay out of Iraqi cities too. And of course, he's supported funding for continued operations at every critical juncture. I'm sure that if I bothered to look it up there were a couple of other flips and flops along the way, but you get the idea. I know you've been exposed to the facts on this.
This is where I hesitate to vote for Obama. That and committing us to Dafur. However, I would still much rather have an election between him and McCain should McCain lose. Because of Iran and McCain wanting to confront Russia and Asia too. Mac is a man worthy of the name "warmonger."

So if Obama flips on pulling out of Iraq, I still don't think he'll be as bad as McCain on inflaming the world. The exception would be Dafur as his choice of intervention.

If you're looking for a candidate who's been consistent on Iraq, you're only choice is to look across the aisle at John McCain.

I heard, recently, that he wasn't always that consistent either on Iraq. Seems, like he's startin' to pander to polls now as well on withdrawing from Iraq as opposed to staying for 100 years.

One thing you can pretty much count on, American fp is basically the same from administration to administration—hopelessly internationalistic and meddling. They just disagree as to what approach to take.

[BucEyedPea]

ROFL

1) The role the "marketplace of ideas" plays in other nations rejecting your contemporary hard anti-federalist approach. And of course, the utter and complete failure of the idea you advocate to successfully compete in that marketplace. After all, if had successfully competed, one would think at least one modern industrial nation somewhere in the world would be operating under it.
How 'bout backing that up....with just something, anything.



2) The "federal" part of my comment about getting rid of the "federal" interstate system, and transferring it to the states.

I suppose I gave your comprehension skills too much credit. I'll make allowances in the future, as I do in the face of your lack of comprehension of falsifiability and it's place in the Scientific Method.

It's not really a federal system. It's a state system if you bother to do your research. It just has some fed involvement for aid but it is mainly a "series of interconnected state highways with a unified numbering plan for the purpose of aiding navigation."

For example participation in the US Route System is also voluntary. States are not even bound by Federal Law to comply with US route designations either.

Now tell me how this anti-federalist system isn't working?

[banyon]

Not apples and oranges though. Their situation is different. A small landmass where things are much closer. Smaller cars, more use of rail and they ride bikes a lot which you can do when things are closer. They don't need as much as we do. We have a larger land mass with things more spread out save for an area like NE who will fare better.

This is absolutely right. The impact of the prices isn't near what it is here.

http://www.altenergystocks.com/assets/Petrol.jpg

[BucEyedPea]

I have no problem with the gas tax suspension because politicians are not fixing them with the money they collect for it. More of the Interstate Highway System is deteriorating. Half of that tax money is actually spent on maintaining and building roads. The rest is spent on other political wish lists. F'em!

Road expert and author Gabriel Roth observed, “U.S. roads suffer from the typical command economy characteristics: poor maintenance, congestion, and insensitivity to consumer needs.”

[patteeu]

Not apples and oranges though. Their situation is different. A small landmass where things are much closer. Smaller cars, more use of rail and they ride bikes a lot which you can do when things are closer. They don't need as much as we do. We have a larger land mass with things more spread out save for an area like NE who will fare better.

This is absolutely right. The impact of the prices isn't near what it is here.

Sure it's right, but what difference does it make? I live in a rural area and drive a gas guzzling truck so my total fuel costs are quite a bit higher than someone who lives in the city center and drives a hybrid. Should I get discounts on my gasoline because I'm more dependent on it? Of course not.

That kind of "to each according to their needs" thinking isn't my thing. :p

I heard, recently, that he wasn't always that consistent either on Iraq. Seems, like he's startin' to pander to polls now as well on withdrawing from Iraq as opposed to staying for 100 years.

You heard wrong.

[BucEyedPea]

Sure it's right, but what difference does it make? I live in a rural area and drive a gas guzzling truck so my total fuel costs are quite a bit higher than someone who lives in the city center and drives a hybrid. Should I get discounts on my gasoline because I'm more dependent on it? Of course not.

That kind of "to each according to their needs" thinking isn't my thing. :p
:lame:

That is complete an utter BS that I made an "each according to their needs" argument. I wasn't calling for redistributing the cost of oil. I was simply point out that our reliance will affect us more. Now you say we will be okay. Well we would be even more okay without doing Iraq which took more oil off world markets.

You heard wrong.

Oh no I'm not.
Saw a link the other day but just glanced at it.

This sounds like he's trimming his sails here:
"That reminds me of this 100-year thing," McCain said. "I was asked at a town hall meeting…how long would we have a presence in Iraq. My friends, the war will be over soon. The war for all intents and purposes [will be over], although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years, but it'll be handled by the Iraqis not by us, and then we decide what kind of security arrangement we want to have with the Iraqis."
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/25/700518.aspx

Not the same one but close enough. Earlier as against a long term presence before he was. Hmmm.
McCain flip-flops (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/29/a-mccain-flip-flop-on-iraq/)

He's now embraced torture and tax cuts. Pandering. Double-Talk Express.

[patteeu]

:lame:

That is complete an utter BS that I made an "each according to their needs" argument. I wasn't calling for redistributing the cost of oil. I was simply point out that our reliance will affect us more. Now you say we will be okay. Well we would be even more okay without doing Iraq which took more oil off world markets.

It was a tongue in cheek comment. :rolleyes:

Oh no I'm not.
Saw a link the other day but just glanced at it.

This sounds like he's trimming his sails here:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/25/700518.aspx

Not the same one but close enough. Earlier as against a long term presence before he was. Hmmm.
McCain flip-flops (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/29/a-mccain-flip-flop-on-iraq/)

He's now embraced torture and tax cuts. Pandering. Double-Talk Express.

Yes, you are wrong and you prove it with what your post here. That statement by McCain is 100% consistent with his "100 years" comment. You must not understand what he said about "100 years". He's OK with a long term presence if it's necessary and if we aren't taking significant casualties. He also understands that whether or not such a long term presence materializes will be a subject to mutual determination by the Iraqis and ourselves through negotiation. He's envisioning the potential for 100 years of American forward deployment against potential aggression from the Iranians much like our German and South Korean deployments were focused on the Warsaw Pact and North Korea respectively. He's not envisioning 100 years of anti-insurgency occupation by any stretch of the imagination.

And you're completely wrong about torture too.

He *has* changed his position on the tax cuts, but he takes that position from a different starting point now so it's not really what I'd call a flip flop. I'll give it to you though. You're 1 for 3.

[BucEyedPea]

[QUOTE=BucEyedPea;4731529]:lame:

That is complete an utter BS that I made an "each according to their needs" argument. I wasn't calling for redistributing the cost of oil. I was simply point out that our reliance will affect us more. Now you say we will be okay. Well we would be even more okay without doing Iraq which took more oil off world markets.

:deevee:

It was a tongue in cheek comment.
I wasn't crying or being a victim. I was just calling BS—which is was. Don't make assumptions as to what is happening on the other side of the screen.

Yes, you are wrong and you prove it with what your post here. That statement by McCain is 100% consistent with his "100 years" comment. You must not understand what he said about "100 years". He's OK with a long term presence if it's necessary and if we aren't taking significant casualties. he also understands that whether or not such a long term presence materializes will be a subject that is mutually determined by the Iraqis and ourselves through negotiation.

I know perfectly well what McCain said about Iraq and about casualties. That idea is also unpopular as no one wants to write a blank check for a long occupation either. But there are two quotes. You didn't cite the other one from 2005 ( linked) regarding him saying "no" to the idea of a long presence like post WWII Germany and Japan. So he flipped from that to long term presence and then softened long term presence again because that's also unpopular.

And you're completely wrong about torture too.
No I'm not. He flip-flopped. You ignored the other quote.

He has changed his position on the tax cuts, but he takes that position from a different starting point now so it's not really what I'd call a flip flop. I'll give it to you though. You're 1 for 3.
Are you actually spinning what a flip-flop is now? Didn't you do that for Romney? You do it for whoever you support. I guess like anyone else. McCain is pandering and he also flip-flopped on SC justices as well. So by your standards I'm 2 for three. ( I say 3 for 3) Add in the SC justices and I'm 4/4 my system and 3/4 in yours. I win.

McCain is trimming his sails to some degree even if you want to parse those degree by degree.

[BucEyedPea]

Heh. Actually, the dumbest argument in this thread is getting rid of the Federal Interstate system and turning it over to the individual states.

Well that's what it is. It's a state system basically.

It's not a federal Autobahn like Germany which actually did not have much popular support and had slow construction.
It took Hitler to change that and make it what it became for his intent: to strengthen centralized rule and make things more efficient for the military.

[BucEyedPea]

I might be that way too, I suppose, if I continually ranted a fringe political view of hard anti-federalism that no modern nation thinks worthwhile enough to operate under. As they aren't, it must not be that great, at least according to competition in the marketplace of ideas. :D

You missed Switzerland. A country with one of the higher standards of living in Europe who grant a lot of political autonomy to it's cantons and operates on the model our Founders gave us. Strong work ethic too. Beautiful clean and modern and got that way before many other countries in Europe or the world.

You also missed pre over-centralized America which generated the wealth we gained that allowed us to become a super-power.

BTW what's so great about peer pressure? Or being a conformist ? I thought that was for High School. The world advances by breakthrough ideas and always is attacked at first. That's how America came into existence.

[patteeu]

I know perfectly well what McCain said about Iraq and about casualties. That idea is also unpopular as no one wants to write a blank check for a long occupation either. But there are two quotes. You didn't cite the other one from 2005 ( linked) regarding him saying "no" to the idea of a long presence like post WWII Germany and Japan. So he flipped from that to long term presence and then softened long term presence again because that's also unpopular.


No I'm not. He flip-flopped. You ignored the other quote.


Are you actually spinning what a flip-flop is now? Didn't you do that for Romney? You do it for whoever you support. I guess like anyone else. McCain is pandering and he also flip-flopped on SC justices as well. So by your standards I'm 2 for three. ( I say 3 for 3) Add in the SC justices and I'm 4/4 my system and 3/4 in yours. I win.

McCain is trimming his sails to some degree even if you want to parse those degree by degree.

I'm not going to argue with you. I know you won't admit that you're wrong and you *are* wrong.

I see a difference between a person whose views evolve over time or a person whose views are specifically based on a certain set of circumstances and the flip flopper who changes his position for purely political reasons. McCain has a story about why he changed his position on taxes. You don't believe him. I'm not certain. I gave it to you.

But on the 100 years and the torture issue, you are completely wrong. If you believe otherwise, it's because you don't really understand what you're talking about. I'd go into it with you if I thought there was the slightest possibility that you'd admit you were wrong in the end, but there isn't so I won't.

1 for 3 (and a shaky 1 at that).

[BucEyedPea]

I'm not going to argue with you. I know you won't admit that you're wrong and you *are* wrong.

I see a difference between a person whose views evolve over time or a person whose views are specifically based on a certain set of circumstances and the flip flopper who changes his position for purely political reasons. McCain has a story about why he changed his position on taxes. You don't believe him. I'm not certain. I gave it to you.

But on the 100 years and the torture issue, you are completely wrong. If you believe otherwise, it's because you don't really understand what you're talking about. I'd go into it with you if I thought there was the slightest possibility that you'd admit you were wrong in the end, but there isn't so I won't.

1 for 3 (and a shaky 1 at that).

Nope it's fact—not a belief. And his list is expanding as well. Now he's a friend of the "agents of intolerance" like Falwell etc.

And you don't have to explain anything to me bout the torture either.
If you going to talk about how a law is interpreted. I've read some of that.
You spin for flip-flopper Romney and call it evolving, then I doesn't surprise me you'd do it for McCain.
He simply WANTS to be president.

[whoman69]

There's absolutely no reason that the states can't be tasked with maintaining their portion of this infrastructure. It would be a huge boost for their local economies.

How? You think that the people working on the roads would come from another place if they were run by the states? You think that the materials would come from another place if the burden was on the states? Sorry I already pay enough in state taxes. We have a 6% sales tax, an income tax, property tax and the other various taxes. The reason the Fed becomes involved is its interstate commerce. The states already pay a portion of cost for the roads, including interstate roads. Granted that is done in part with money from the federal government. I just finished my state taxes as I knew I would have to pay in more than they take out like I do every year. The Fed says that I'm very poor and give me more money than I take in. The state government say that not only are the sales and property taxes insufficient but so is the withholding.