Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Guest

"gas tax holiday"

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest

John McCain and Hillary Clinton are now engaged in an act of political prostitution. They are pandering to the least informed voters, promising a gas tax holiday for the summer. Some voters, who are stupid enough to buy this, and petty enough to allow their vote to be bought with a lollipop, probably will jack up Hillary's numbers this coming Tuesday.

If these voters had any brains, they would realize that the price of gas at the pump is set by supply and demand. Take off the 18-cent gas tax, and the oil companies will just add 18 cents onto the price. You won't save a penny.

Oh, but it will effect you economically. The money you will have given to the oil companies could have been used to offset your taxes, but since there's no such thing as a free lunch, you're going to have to make up those revenues - the roads are not going to fix themselves and the tooth fairy isn't going to do it.

In addition, without the gas tax, roads and highways won't get needed repairs, which means that you'll be sitting in longer traffic lines all summer and into the fall. This is also going to cost you economically, not to mention the cost of your time and inconvenience. There are also going to be more accidents because now the roads will be in worse shape. Even if you're not one of the people involved in one of those accidents (if you are, that's even more costly to you personally), there's an economic cost to your lost time, too, including whatever number of days you are late getting to work.

Not one expert in economics or public policy supports this ridiculous free-lunch idea. This is pure political pandering. But that didn't stop Hillary or McCain. Only one remaining presidential candidate had the integrity to say no. I hope he survives this primary season and becomes the Democratic nominee, then President. If he does not, then we are headed for four more years of the same political folly that landed us in this mess in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Patriot
John McCain and Hillary Clinton are now engaged in an act of political prostitution. They are pandering to the least informed voters, promising a gas tax holiday for the summer. Some voters, who are stupid enough to buy this, and petty enough to allow their vote to be bought with a lollipop, probably will jack up Hillary's numbers this coming Tuesday.

If these voters had any brains, they would realize that the price of gas at the pump is set by supply and demand. Take off the 18-cent gas tax, and the oil companies will just add 18 cents onto the price. You won't save a penny.

Oh, but it will effect you economically. The money you will have given to the oil companies could have been used to offset your taxes, but since there's no such thing as a free lunch, you're going to have to make up those revenues - the roads are not going to fix themselves and the tooth fairy isn't going to do it.

In addition, without the gas tax, roads and highways won't get needed repairs, which means that you'll be sitting in longer traffic lines all summer and into the fall. This is also going to cost you economically, not to mention the cost of your time and inconvenience. There are also going to be more accidents because now the roads will be in worse shape. Even if you're not one of the people involved in one of those accidents (if you are, that's even more costly to you personally), there's an economic cost to your lost time, too, including whatever number of days you are late getting to work.

Not one expert in economics or public policy supports this ridiculous free-lunch idea. This is pure political pandering. But that didn't stop Hillary or McCain. Only one remaining presidential candidate had the integrity to say no. I hope he survives this primary season and becomes the Democratic nominee, then President. If he does not, then we are headed for four more years of the same political folly that landed us in this mess in the first place.

"Integrity" ?? The same integrity he used when he listened to his pastor and "spiritual advisor"

speak his vile hatred for 20 years ?? "Birds of a feather ...........".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
"Integrity" ?? The same integrity he used when he listened to his pastor and "spiritual advisor"

speak his vile hatred for 20 years ?? "Birds of a feather ...........".

You have a real tough time focusing, especially when the facts aren't convenient to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
"Integrity" ?? The same integrity he used when he listened to his pastor and "spiritual advisor"

speak his vile hatred for 20 years ?? "Birds of a feather ...........".

Robertson.

Hagee.

Falwell.

Inhofe.

Keep it up, 2dim. The Democrats would love to have an opportunity to throw this 'pastor problem' back at McCain fourfold. All he needs is to be stupid enough to try and use Wright to attack Obama after he's the official nominee.

:unsure:

"I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are — were recipients of the judgment of God for that." --John Hagee, whose endorsement McCain is proud of

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Radagast
"Integrity" ?? The same integrity he used when he listened to his pastor and "spiritual advisor"

speak his vile hatred for 20 years ?? "Birds of a feather ...........".

Gee ... looky here ... Patriot accusing someone else of 'vile hatred'. This is truly an historic event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith
"Integrity" ?? The same integrity he used when he listened to his pastor and "spiritual advisor"

speak his vile hatred for 20 years ?? "Birds of a feather ...........".

f**k off Patriot!

I sincerely hope that no one you knows ever runs for office and they dig up everything you have ever said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John McCain and Hillary Clinton are now engaged in an act of political prostitution. They are pandering to the least informed voters, promising a gas tax holiday for the summer. Some voters, who are stupid enough to buy this, and petty enough to allow their vote to be bought with a lollipop, probably will jack up Hillary's numbers this coming Tuesday.

If these voters had any brains, they would realize that the price of gas at the pump is set by supply and demand. Take off the 18-cent gas tax, and the oil companies will just add 18 cents onto the price. You won't save a penny.

No, it doesn't work that way--you're the one with no brains. It's easy enough to prove it. Just look at two adjacent states that charge a different tax on gasoline. Rather than the market evening out the price between the two states, you can find a marked jump in price from one state to the other.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/245.html

According to AAA, the average price for a gallon of regular unleaded in Arizona is $3.318. That's up about 9 cents from one month ago, and 37 cents a gallon higher than one year ago.

[...]

Gas prices in California, which leads the nation in pricey fuel, broke $3.80 a gallon. New Jersey, the state with the cheapest gas, remains the only place with prices below $3.20 a gallon.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories...14/daily14.html

The price of gas will rise somewhat if the tax is lifted, but that's because higher demand will likely result from the initial lowering of the price. Consumers will pay less for gas if the tax is lifted, however. If voters want lower gas prices, lifting taxes on gas is one way to deliver on that issue.

You can compare the price of cigarettes, also. Cigarette makers could sell cigarettes for less and double their profits if the taxes on cigarettes were lifted--all the while charging a lower price. In the case of cigarettes, competition would keep prices low (and the profit margin fairly stable across the industry).

Oh, but it will effect you economically. The money you will have given to the oil companies could have been used to offset your taxes, but since there's no such thing as a free lunch, you're going to have to make up those revenues - the roads are not going to fix themselves and the tooth fairy isn't going to do it.

True, but killing vacations is no way to stimulate an economy. If people go on vacation they tend to spend money--and that generates tax revenue where the money is spent (in sales and corporate taxes). And whether the White House and Democrats will admit it or not, the increased emphasis on biofuels (both here and in Europe) is having a pronounced effect on food prices.

In addition, without the gas tax, roads and highways won't get needed repairs, which means that you'll be sitting in longer traffic lines all summer and into the fall. This is also going to cost you economically, not to mention the cost of your time and inconvenience. There are also going to be more accidents because now the roads will be in worse shape. Even if you're not one of the people involved in one of those accidents (if you are, that's even more costly to you personally), there's an economic cost to your lost time, too, including whatever number of days you are late getting to work.

Now you're really straining. :unsure:

Not one expert in economics or public policy supports this ridiculous free-lunch idea.

No worries. The free lunch thing is just your straw man, anyway. There is a cost to lifting the gas tax for the summer, and it's probably worth the cost.

This is pure political pandering.

It's arguably a form of Keynesian stimulus, actually.

But that didn't stop Hillary or McCain. Only one remaining presidential candidate had the integrity to say no. I hope he survives this primary season and becomes the Democratic nominee, then President. If he does not, then we are headed for four more years of the same political folly that landed us in this mess in the first place.

We'll be in decent shape on the energy front if we cultivate Iraq as a Middle East ally, tap domestic oil and gas reserves, build a new refinery or two and get into nuclear energy bigtime. The Democrats tend to be against all of that. Hope you like expensive fuel and bread, because that's what Obama will give you (unless he betrays his hard-left supporters in the radical environmental movement).

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_en...uivocations.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Radagast

>>We'll be in decent shape on the energy front if we cultivate Iraq as a Middle East ally,<<

and when do you suppose that's going to happen? Production isn't even likely to rise very much over pre-war levels until the fighting subsides. I don't believe that will happen until sometime after we withdraw.

>>tap domestic oil and gas reserves,<<

Small gain and not worth the damage, IMHO

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/

>> build a new refinery or two<<

Maybe the oil companies could foot the bill for that themselves now instead of depending on Federal tax breaks? .. or ten billion a week in profits isn't enough?

>>and get into nuclear energy bigtime.<<

There are many environmentalists who think today's nuclear is a good idea. I'm ambivalent, however, if it can be proven safe, I don't see why not.

>> The Democrats tend to be against all of that. Hope you like expensive fuel and bread, because that's what Obama will give you (unless he betrays his hard-left supporters in the radical environmental movement).<<

One good thing that has come out of all this is that the idiots who insist on driving Hummers and other gas guzzleing SUVs for vanity are being forced to pay dearly for the perk... and from my observation, that's a lot of people. I drive a little 35 MPG tin can so they get little sympathy from me. Imagine that, Capitalism forcing people into fuel efficiency. What a concept! I think it's a great idea ... but Bryan, you want the government to step in and, essentially, subsidize gas prices? I'm shocked!

What we could save in the long run if we let this summer vacation season tank because of gas prices instead of having the government put a temporary bandaid on a gaping wound, to me anyway, would be for the greater good.

I don't think anyone agrees with me on this one, however. .. not even Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
No, it doesn't work that way--you're the one with no brains. It's easy enough to prove it. Just look at two adjacent states that charge a different tax on gasoline. Rather than the market evening out the price between the two states, you can find a marked jump in price from one state to the other.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/245.html

According to AAA, the average price for a gallon of regular unleaded in Arizona is $3.318. That's up about 9 cents from one month ago, and 37 cents a gallon higher than one year ago.

[...]

Gas prices in California, which leads the nation in pricey fuel, broke $3.80 a gallon. New Jersey, the state with the cheapest gas, remains the only place with prices below $3.20 a gallon.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories...14/daily14.html

The price of gas will rise somewhat if the tax is lifted, but that's because higher demand will likely result from the initial lowering of the price. Consumers will pay less for gas if the tax is lifted, however. If voters want lower gas prices, lifting taxes on gas is one way to deliver on that issue.

You can compare the price of cigarettes, also. Cigarette makers could sell cigarettes for less and double their profits if the taxes on cigarettes were lifted--all the while charging a lower price. In the case of cigarettes, competition would keep prices low (and the profit margin fairly stable across the industry).

True, but killing vacations is no way to stimulate an economy. If people go on vacation they tend to spend money--and that generates tax revenue where the money is spent (in sales and corporate taxes). And whether the White House and Democrats will admit it or not, the increased emphasis on biofuels (both here and in Europe) is having a pronounced effect on food prices.

Now you're really straining. :unsure:

No worries. The free lunch thing is just your straw man, anyway. There is a cost to lifting the gas tax for the summer, and it's probably worth the cost.

It's arguably a form of Keynesian stimulus, actually.

We'll be in decent shape on the energy front if we cultivate Iraq as a Middle East ally, tap domestic oil and gas reserves, build a new refinery or two and get into nuclear energy bigtime. The Democrats tend to be against all of that. Hope you like expensive fuel and bread, because that's what Obama will give you (unless he betrays his hard-left supporters in the radical environmental movement).

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_en...uivocations.php

You just love to argue. Comparing regional economies doesn't disprove the point, idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Economics Student
John McCain and Hillary Clinton are now engaged in an act of political prostitution. They are pandering to the least informed voters, promising a gas tax holiday for the summer. Some voters, who are stupid enough to buy this, and petty enough to allow their vote to be bought with a lollipop, probably will jack up Hillary's numbers this coming Tuesday.

If these voters had any brains, they would realize that the price of gas at the pump is set by supply and demand. Take off the 18-cent gas tax, and the oil companies will just add 18 cents onto the price. You won't save a penny.

Oh, but it will effect you economically. The money you will have given to the oil companies could have been used to offset your taxes, but since there's no such thing as a free lunch, you're going to have to make up those revenues - the roads are not going to fix themselves and the tooth fairy isn't going to do it.

In addition, without the gas tax, roads and highways won't get needed repairs, which means that you'll be sitting in longer traffic lines all summer and into the fall. This is also going to cost you economically, not to mention the cost of your time and inconvenience. There are also going to be more accidents because now the roads will be in worse shape. Even if you're not one of the people involved in one of those accidents (if you are, that's even more costly to you personally), there's an economic cost to your lost time, too, including whatever number of days you are late getting to work.

Not one expert in economics or public policy supports this ridiculous free-lunch idea. This is pure political pandering. But that didn't stop Hillary or McCain. Only one remaining presidential candidate had the integrity to say no. I hope he survives this primary season and becomes the Democratic nominee, then President. If he does not, then we are headed for four more years of the same political folly that landed us in this mess in the first place.

1. I am a voter. I am not stupid. I think the gas tax holiday could work.

2. I have a brain. I studied economics. Gas prices vary from state to state based on factors such as transportation costs, refinery locations AND gas tax levels. New Jersey is one of the LOWEST gas tax states in the country. We also have some of the cheapest gas around. As to economics, I don't think shaving 4% off the price this summer will increase demand for gasoline. Plus the slowing economy will probably depress demand somewhat. So the gas tax holiday could help me in the wallet. However, what we ultimately pay will be mostly determined by the supply side, which we have no control over. Will oil production be disrupted this summer? Will OPEC cut production? That has nothing to do with the gas tax.

3. No one said this is a free lunch. You omit the part where Clinton proposed an excess profits tax on the oil companies to make up for the lost revenue from tax gas holiday. I certainly support that.

4. A three-month holiday leads to calamity on the roadways? You're kidding, right? Even if the revenues aren't made up with the tax on oil companies, a three-month holiday will not be the end of road repairs!

5. I am not on the side of economists. Economists think gasoline is still too cheap. Yes, in the "ideal" world $8 a gallon gasoline would lead to greater research and supply of alternate energy sources and alternate energy consuming vehicles, and we'd be better off in the long-run, but I live in the "real" world and right now I could use a little help at the pump. (You know, they call Economics the "dismal science" for a reason.)

6. You know what I think? That you're an Obama supporter and you're getting worried that your guy is losing ground and fast. You doth protest too much with words like ridiculous, prostitution and brains. Why such patronizing vitriol?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
As to economics, I don't think shaving 4% off the price this summer will increase demand for gasoline.

It won't. The demand will remain the same, and so will the supply, which is why the pump price will also remain the same. All the gas tax holiday gimmick does is send the money off to the oil companies.

Some economics student.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

How long have you been studying economics?

http://gastax08.blogspot.com/

"Put simply, suspending the federal tax on gasoline this summer is a bad idea and we oppose it.

There are several reasons for this opposition:

First, research shows that waiving the gas tax would generate major profits for oil companies rather than significantly lowering prices for consumers.

Second, it would encourage people to keep buying costly imported oil and do nothing to encourage conservation.

Third, a tax holiday would provide very little relief to families feeling squeezed.

Fourth, the gas tax suspension would threaten to increase the already record deficit in the coming year and reduce the amount of money going into the highway trust fund that maintains our infrastructure.

Signers of this letter are Democrats, Republicans and Independents. This is not a partisan issue. It is a matter of good public policy.

Sincerely, <huge list of several hundred signers, at 283 at time of writing>"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

This says it all...

"STEPHANOPOULOS: But can you name an economist who thinks this makes sense?

CLINTON: Well, I’ll tell you what, I’m not going to put my lot in with economists…."

Clinton calls Obama "elitist", but she defines "elitist" as listening to the people who know what they're talking about.

She should still be voted for over McCain, but this is pretty low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bob
No, it doesn't work that way--you're the one with no brains. It's easy enough to prove it. Just look at two adjacent states that charge a different tax on gasoline. Rather than the market evening out the price between the two states, you can find a marked jump in price from one state to the other.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/245.html

According to AAA, the average price for a gallon of regular unleaded in Arizona is $3.318. That's up about 9 cents from one month ago, and 37 cents a gallon higher than one year ago.

[...]

Gas prices in California, which leads the nation in pricey fuel, broke $3.80 a gallon. New Jersey, the state with the cheapest gas, remains the only place with prices below $3.20 a gallon.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories...14/daily14.html

The price of gas will rise somewhat if the tax is lifted, but that's because higher demand will likely result from the initial lowering of the price. Consumers will pay less for gas if the tax is lifted, however. If voters want lower gas prices, lifting taxes on gas is one way to deliver on that issue.

You can compare the price of cigarettes, also. Cigarette makers could sell cigarettes for less and double their profits if the taxes on cigarettes were lifted--all the while charging a lower price. In the case of cigarettes, competition would keep prices low (and the profit margin fairly stable across the industry).

True, but killing vacations is no way to stimulate an economy. If people go on vacation they tend to spend money--and that generates tax revenue where the money is spent (in sales and corporate taxes). And whether the White House and Democrats will admit it or not, the increased emphasis on biofuels (both here and in Europe) is having a pronounced effect on food prices.

Now you're really straining. :)

No worries. The free lunch thing is just your straw man, anyway. There is a cost to lifting the gas tax for the summer, and it's probably worth the cost.

It's arguably a form of Keynesian stimulus, actually.

We'll be in decent shape on the energy front if we cultivate Iraq as a Middle East ally, tap domestic oil and gas reserves, build a new refinery or two and get into nuclear energy bigtime. The Democrats tend to be against all of that. Hope you like expensive fuel and bread, because that's what Obama will give you (unless he betrays his hard-left supporters in the radical environmental movement).

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_en...uivocations.php

Very astute, except for the fact that the federal gas tax has nothing to do with the run up in gas prices.

Without addressing what actually caused the price increase utterly misses the point, and the band aid of dropping the federal tax does nothing to solve this in the long term.

That's why Obama rightly calls this tactic a sham.

Of course, apologists like yourself will focus on 18.5 cents that goes to the government and not the $2 that goes to Big Oil.

"We'll be in decent shape on the energy front if we cultivate Iraq as a Middle East ally..."

And we'll revolutionize the pork transport industry when pigs fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>>We'll be in decent shape on the energy front if we cultivate Iraq as a Middle East ally,<<

and when do you suppose that's going to happen? Production isn't even likely to rise very much over pre-war levels until the fighting subsides. I don't believe that will happen until sometime after we withdraw.

It'll start to happen once Iraq controls Basra, the main oil export city in Iraq. Oh, look.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle3671861.ece

>>tap domestic oil and gas reserves,<<

Small gain and not worth the damage, IMHO

Hope you know how to ride a bike.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/

>> build a new refinery or two<<

Maybe the oil companies could foot the bill for that themselves now instead of depending on Federal tax breaks? .. or ten billion a week in profits isn't enough?

The oil companies don't mind building the refineries. But they need the OK from government. Some in government think it's "not worth the damage," to borrow your phrase.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb48...05/ai_n18004214

>>and get into nuclear energy bigtime.<<

There are many environmentalists who think today's nuclear is a good idea. I'm ambivalent, however, if it can be proven safe, I don't see why not.

Bicycle, my friend. And maybe you can ride one at a factory, too, to help them generate energy with which to produce goods. ;)

>> The Democrats tend to be against all of that. Hope you like expensive fuel and bread, because that's what Obama will give you (unless he betrays his hard-left supporters in the radical environmental movement).<<

One good thing that has come out of all this is that the idiots who insist on driving Hummers and other gas guzzleing SUVs for vanity are being forced to pay dearly for the perk... and from my observation, that's a lot of people. I drive a little 35 MPG tin can so they get little sympathy from me. Imagine that, Capitalism forcing people into fuel efficiency. What a concept! I think it's a great idea ... but Bryan, you want the government to step in and, essentially, subsidize gas prices? I'm shocked!

Meh. Non sequitur. Removing taxes on gasoline is not subsidizing gas prices. Paying gas companies to produce gasoline would be subsidizing gas prices. There is a weak argument that allowing gas companies access to public lands for drilling is a type of subsidy--but how else are you supposed to make use of the energy? Wait for the crude oil fairy to delivery it to the refinery? The government gets its cut by taxing gas at the end of the line instead of charging for access to the raw material.

What we could save in the long run if we let this summer vacation season tank because of gas prices instead of having the government put a temporary bandaid on a gaping wound, to me anyway, would be for the greater good.

What a laugh. As if the greater good is served by a recession aggravated by government intervention at the risk of spiraling inflation.

That's the hilarious thing about Democratic campaign rhetoric. They're trying to act like they'll improve the economy, but their policies spell shrinking economy and penalties for investment. But they can trust you to blame Bush when they screw up. :)

I don't think anyone agrees with me on this one, however. .. not even Obama.

He might be inclined to agree with you, but his economic advisers would be against such rampant silliness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very astute, except for the fact that the federal gas tax has nothing to do with the run up in gas prices.

I didn't say that it did. The run up in gas prices has to do with higher demand (especially in China and India), speculation, and a recent pipeline problem in Nigeria.

Without addressing what actually caused the price increase utterly misses the point, and the band aid of dropping the federal tax does nothing to solve this in the long term.

The gas tax holiday is not advertised as a solution for higher gas prices. It is touted as a form of temporary relief for consumers, and it fits that bill.

That's why Obama rightly calls this tactic a sham.

He's off the mark for the same reason you are.

Of course, apologists like yourself will focus on 18.5 cents that goes to the government and not the $2 that goes to Big Oil.

18.5 goes to the federal government, and more than that typically goes to state governments (as has already been shown).

I'm happy to focus on oil company profits. Profits are what make oil exploration worthwhile, and profits are what make 401k and retirement investments in oil companies a boon to retirees (even if they're not retired yet). Take away the profit motive and why should an oil company bother to bring oil to market? The market incentive is gone. At that point, it is better for an oil company to allow the supply of oil to shrink and allow demand to increase. If the government refuses to budge, then get out of oil production and get into something more profitable, like publishing books like the ones Clinton and Obama wrote (funny how they're not against windfall profits when they're the ones profiting, isn't it?). Ever calculate how much they made on their books in relation to the time spent producing them?

So what does Hillary propose? Go after the profits. That will cause the supply to shrink, which will result in higher prices (unless the government institutes price controls, in which case we'll end up with shortages).

People have forgotten how bad are the economic policies of liberals. Obama or Clinton will remind you.

"We'll be in decent shape on the energy front if we cultivate Iraq as a Middle East ally..."

And we'll revolutionize the pork transport industry when pigs fly.

The reason for your skepticism isn't clear. We've already got a good working relationship with the Iraqi government, particularly compared to other nations in the region. But then you're an Obama supporter, so I shouldn't expect good reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bob
That's the hilarious thing about Democratic campaign rhetoric. They're trying to act like they'll improve the economy, but their policies spell shrinking economy and penalties for investment. But they can trust you to blame Bush when they screw up. :)

You're blaming current economic woes on a future president who hasn't stepped into the White House yet, while giving Bush a retroactive pass starting in 2009.

How wonderfully bizarre!

I want whatever it is you're smoking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Economics Student
It won't. The demand will remain the same, and so will the supply, which is why the pump price will also remain the same. All the gas tax holiday gimmick does is send the money off to the oil companies.

Some economics student.

Let's try again. You agree with my assumption that the demand curve will not shift. If we also assume there will be no change in the oil production markets this summer (a very big assumption considering the history of OPEC and instability in countries such as Nigeria and other major oil producing countries), in order for an economist to reach your conclusion that oil companies will pocket the tax holiday savings, that would have to mean that all retail suppliers of gasoline will tacitly collude with each other, effectively taking advantage of inelastic demand, and pocket the tax holiday savings by not lowering prices. That could happen if there were only 3 or 4 gas stations to buy gasoline from. But there are literally dozens within a 5 mile radius of us. So long as the retail market remains competitive, at least some of those stations will pass on the tax savings, which would then likely lead most of the remaining stations to pass on the savings to be competitive. If you don't think gas stations try to compete on price, just take an informal survey of the price of premium offered by stations in Kearny, and also realize that the last two stations that closed in Kearny tried to sell relatively expensive gasoline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Let's try again. You agree with my assumption that the demand curve will not shift. If we also assume there will be no change in the oil production markets this summer (a very big assumption considering the history of OPEC and instability in countries such as Nigeria and other major oil producing countries), in order for an economist to reach your conclusion that oil companies will pocket the tax holiday savings, that would have to mean that all retail suppliers of gasoline will tacitly collude with each other, effectively taking advantage of inelastic demand, and pocket the tax holiday savings by not lowering prices. That could happen if there were only 3 or 4 gas stations to buy gasoline from. But there are literally dozens within a 5 mile radius of us. So long as the retail market remains competitive, at least some of those stations will pass on the tax savings, which would then likely lead most of the remaining stations to pass on the savings to be competitive. If you don't think gas stations try to compete on price, just take an informal survey of the price of premium offered by stations in Kearny, and also realize that the last two stations that closed in Kearny tried to sell relatively expensive gasoline.

Then how do you explain the record profits the oil companies have been making recently? That blows your argument to smithereens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bob
I didn't say that it did. The run up in gas prices has to do with higher demand (especially in China and India), speculation, and a recent pipeline problem in Nigeria.

The gas tax holiday is not advertised as a solution for higher gas prices. It is touted as a form of temporary relief for consumers, and it fits that bill.

He's off the mark for the same reason you are.

18.5 goes to the federal government, and more than that typically goes to state governments (as has already been shown).

I'm happy to focus on oil company profits. Profits are what make oil exploration worthwhile, and profits are what make 401k and retirement investments in oil companies a boon to retirees (even if they're not retired yet). Take away the profit motive and why should an oil company bother to bring oil to market? The market incentive is gone. At that point, it is better for an oil company to allow the supply of oil to shrink and allow demand to increase. If the government refuses to budge, then get out of oil production and get into something more profitable, like publishing books like the ones Clinton and Obama wrote (funny how they're not against windfall profits when they're the ones profiting, isn't it?). Ever calculate how much they made on their books in relation to the time spent producing them?

So what does Hillary propose? Go after the profits. That will cause the supply to shrink, which will result in higher prices (unless the government institutes price controls, in which case we'll end up with shortages).

People have forgotten how bad are the economic policies of liberals. Obama or Clinton will remind you.

The reason for your skepticism isn't clear. We've already got a good working relationship with the Iraqi government, particularly compared to other nations in the region. But then you're an Obama supporter, so I shouldn't expect good reasoning.

You bring up many good points, but you're happy to ignore anything that goes against your arguments. It is funny to hear you call anyone out on good reasoning.

Oil prices also depend heavily on instability in the middle east, which your hero Mr Bush has ratcheted up many-fold in recent years. Also, since oil is largely traded using US currency, the beating our dollar has taken because of economic policies during Bush's tenure has made oil more expensive. Every time we drop the prime interest rate or fall deeper into debt, oil gets more expensive. The rise in oil prices follows more closely the price of gold than Indian or Chinese consumption. Why? Because the dollar is trashed.

In fact, China and India have been guzzling down more oil for decades, even during Clinton's presidency. Guess what? oil prices went down under Clinton.

Your skepticism of a Democratic president isn't clear, or do you think Bush's economy has done better than Clinton's?

There is no fear against profits alone. This is America after all. The only fear against profits is in the mythology in the brains of people of your ilk. Obviously, something is out of whack when oil companies are making record profits at a time when people are struggling to make house payments and combat rising food prices. When truckers can't afford to ship goods across the country, and energy prices go up, our economy slows down. Oil is a unique commodity in this regard, affecting many economic factors.

I'm sure you are willing to limit the minimum wage and sacrifice consumers' ability to sue companies for damages for the greater good of the economy. Why should oil profits be such a sacred cow?

It is also telling that you bring in the profits of Clinton and Obama's book deals and not any of the oil ties of the Executive branch.

I don't have to come up with pretzel logic arguments that ignore the obvious, like you do. If you made any sense, or if Bush really was a master steward of the economy, I would have no reason to argue. In fact, I'd be thankful my investments gave me bountiful returns and gas was cheap. That's the basis on which I compare Clinton and Bush's economies, and there simply is no contest.

For you, it's a purely ideological issue for which you will sweep any inconvenient realities under endless, utterly biased verbage. Me? I want to make and save more money with higher pay, better return on stock investments, better interest rates on bonds and CDs and cheaper gas. I did that under Clinton, which is why I am not an Obama supporter, even though I agree with him on this issue.

Obviously, we're not going to agree. I just don't know what the heck people like you are trying to prove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You bring up many good points, but you're happy to ignore anything that goes against your arguments. It is funny to hear you call anyone out on good reasoning.

Oil prices also depend heavily on instability in the middle east, which your hero Mr Bush has ratcheted up many-fold in recent years.

That must explain why the price of oil stayed relatively low during most of the war while going higher once the surge strategy largely calmed things down.

But of course I'm the one ignoring the facts. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you'll bring up Iran, but Iran was very probably trying to develop nuclear power for about as long as Saddam Hussein. And it is Europe that succeeded in accomplishing nothing over a period of years in negotiating the issue with Iran. Bottom line, the Middle East is relatively stable right now except for the Iranian threat. I don't even know that liberals regard Iran as a threat, for that matter. I've heard some claim that Iran has a perfect right to whatever technology it wants and we should just leave them alone.

Also, since oil is largely traded using US currency, the beating our dollar has taken because of economic policies during Bush's tenure has made oil more expensive. Every time we drop the prime interest rate or fall deeper into debt, oil gets more expensive. The rise in oil prices follows more closely the price of gold than Indian or Chinese consumption. Why? Because the dollar is trashed.

That's true, but the experts expect that the dollar will climb from its recent lows. And if you took away Indian and Chinese consumption then gasoline would probably be pretty cheap.

In fact, China and India have been guzzling down more oil for decades, even during Clinton's presidency. Guess what? oil prices went down under Clinton.

Oil production was way up compared to demand during the 1990s, and oil consumption in China has roughly doubled in that span of time.

http://www.epsusa.org/publications/newslet...olas_graph1.jpg

Probably the corrupt oil-for-food program helped keep prices down, also. :)

Your skepticism of a Democratic president isn't clear, or do you think Bush's economy has done better than Clinton's?

Clinton's economic policies were not Democratic policies, with the exception of cutting back the military and enjoying the peace dividend produced by the end of the Cold War. Clinton presided over a growing economy left to him by George H. W. Bush and a technology bubble, and his two most important economic moves were signing NAFTA (putting the cherry on top of a Republican trade initiative) and instituting welfare reform. The left hated Clinton for both, but they are easily forgotten when it comes time to tout the greatness of Democratic economic policy.

There is no fear against profits alone. This is America after all. The only fear against profits is in the mythology in the brains of people of your ilk. Obviously, something is out of whack when oil companies are making record profits at a time when people are struggling to make house payments and combat rising food prices. When truckers can't afford to ship goods across the country, and energy prices go up, our economy slows down. Oil is a unique commodity in this regard, affecting many economic factors.

I don't see you addressing the point. If you reduce the profit on oil then you will decrease the incentive for production. That will reduce supply and (given relatively static demand) increase the price of oil. Meanwhile, investors across the spectrum of income lose out.

I'm sure you are willing to limit the minimum wage and sacrifice consumers' ability to sue companies for damages for the greater good of the economy.

I am?

Why should oil profits be such a sacred cow?

Because it's bad policy to execute a windfall profits tax on the oil industry to address high prices?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...s_tax_slap.html

It is also telling that you bring in the profits of Clinton and Obama's book deals and not any of the oil ties of the Executive branch.

Clinton and Obama are the ones decrying windfall profits, are they not? All the while receiving the benefit of windfall profits. I trust I can leave to you any relevant mention of the administration's ties to big oil. Hopefully it's more than just mentioning the supposed relationship and gets to the wrongdoing or resulting damage to consumers. Not very interesting apart from that.

I don't have to come up with pretzel logic arguments that ignore the obvious, like you do.

It's so much easier arguing without any real support for your argument, isn't it? ;)

If you made any sense, or if Bush really was a master steward of the economy, I would have no reason to argue. In fact, I'd be thankful my investments gave me bountiful returns and gas was cheap. That's the basis on which I compare Clinton and Bush's economies, and there simply is no contest.

You're simply under the mistaken notion that the Clinton economy represented the implementation of Democratic policies. Thus you either ignore NAFTA and welfare reform or give us a pretzel.

For you, it's a purely ideological issue for which you will sweep any inconvenient realities under endless, utterly biased verbage. Me? I want to make and save more money with higher pay, better return on stock investments, better interest rates on bonds and CDs and cheaper gas. I did that under Clinton, which is why I am not an Obama supporter, even though I agree with him on this issue.

Obviously, we're not going to agree. I just don't know what the heck people like you are trying to prove.

Nothing to prove--just sticking up for the truth. Bill Clinton did a decent job with the economy by doing very little to mess it up (not counting forcing the reduction of lending standards, which helped precipitate the sub-prime mortgage problem that erupted later). Senator Clinton is more of a doctrinaire liberal, placing government control of healthcare and a bushel full of new and expensive government programs as high priorities for her administration. Obama is slightly more reasonable on healthcare and worse on spending proposals. If either were willing to steer a moderate course like Bill Clinton did as president I wouldn't have dire expectations. But realistically that won't happen. The federal government under either Clinton or Obama will be a unified Democratic government, and nutty policies very harmful to the United States will probably result. There is no Republican-controlled congress to protect us from their stupidity and stimulate Clinton's famous triangulation.

Add to that the international damage that will result if winning in Iraq is left to either of the Democratic nominees. Unless (as many experts expect) their rhetoric is insincere and merely designed to string along the hard left voter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bob
That must explain why the price of oil stayed relatively low during most of the war while going higher once the surge strategy largely calmed things down.

But of course I'm the one ignoring the facts. :lol:

Perhaps you'll bring up Iran, but Iran was very probably trying to develop nuclear power for about as long as Saddam Hussein. And it is Europe that succeeded in accomplishing nothing over a period of years in negotiating the issue with Iran. Bottom line, the Middle East is relatively stable right now except for the Iranian threat. I don't even know that liberals regard Iran as a threat, for that matter. I've heard some claim that Iran has a perfect right to whatever technology it wants and we should just leave them alone.

That's true, but the experts expect that the dollar will climb from its recent lows. And if you took away Indian and Chinese consumption then gasoline would probably be pretty cheap.

Oil production was way up compared to demand during the 1990s, and oil consumption in China has roughly doubled in that span of time.

http://www.epsusa.org/publications/newslet...olas_graph1.jpg

Probably the corrupt oil-for-food program helped keep prices down, also. :lol:

Clinton's economic policies were not Democratic policies, with the exception of cutting back the military and enjoying the peace dividend produced by the end of the Cold War. Clinton presided over a growing economy left to him by George H. W. Bush and a technology bubble, and his two most important economic moves were signing NAFTA (putting the cherry on top of a Republican trade initiative) and instituting welfare reform. The left hated Clinton for both, but they are easily forgotten when it comes time to tout the greatness of Democratic economic policy.

I don't see you addressing the point. If you reduce the profit on oil then you will decrease the incentive for production. That will reduce supply and (given relatively static demand) increase the price of oil. Meanwhile, investors across the spectrum of income lose out.

Because it's bad policy to execute a windfall profits tax on the oil industry to address high prices?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...s_tax_slap.html

Clinton and Obama are the ones decrying windfall profits, are they not? All the while receiving the benefit of windfall profits. I trust I can leave to you any relevant mention of the administration's ties to big oil. Hopefully it's more than just mentioning the supposed relationship and gets to the wrongdoing or resulting damage to consumers. Not very interesting apart from that.

It's so much easier arguing without any real support for your argument, isn't it? :lol:

You're simply under the mistaken notion that the Clinton economy represented the implementation of Democratic policies. Thus you either ignore NAFTA and welfare reform or give us a pretzel.

For you, it's a purely ideological issue for which you will sweep any inconvenient realities under endless, utterly biased verbage. Me? I want to make and save more money with higher pay, better return on stock investments, better interest rates on bonds and CDs and cheaper gas. I did that under Clinton, which is why I am not an Obama supporter, even though I agree with him on this issue.

Obviously, we're not going to agree. I just don't know what the heck people like you are trying to prove.

Nothing to prove--just sticking up for the truth. Bill Clinton did a decent job with the economy by doing very little to mess it up (not counting forcing the reduction of lending standards, which helped precipitate the sub-prime mortgage problem that erupted later). Senator Clinton is more of a doctrinaire liberal, placing government control of healthcare and a bushel full of new and expensive government programs as high priorities for her administration. Obama is slightly more reasonable on healthcare and worse on spending proposals. If either were willing to steer a moderate course like Bill Clinton did as president I wouldn't have dire expectations. But realistically that won't happen. The federal government under either Clinton or Obama will be a unified Democratic government, and nutty policies very harmful to the United States will probably result. There is no Republican-controlled congress to protect us from their stupidity and stimulate Clinton's famous triangulation.

Add to that the international damage that will result if winning in Iraq is left to either of the Democratic nominees. Unless (as many experts expect) their rhetoric is insincere and merely designed to string along the hard left voter.

According to your graph, China's oil consumption doubled from 1991 to 2001, and we had cheap gas. From 2001 to 2005, China's consumption went up 50%, and the price doubled if you compare Dec 2001 and Dec 2005 gas prices.

The current gas run up has more to do with Bush's housing bubble and the need to drop interest rates, even if it trashes our dollar. You can almost graph point for point drops in the interest rates and the rising price of oil, and OPEC itself admits this is the cause. To tie high gas prices to a working surge seems extremely tenuous. I'm willing to listen if you can strengthen your argument.

Say what you will about Clinton's tech "bubble", the overall market came out very much in the black even during the bottom of that rollercoaster. Whatever gain might have been seen in the housing market has been completely wiped out, and we're not done. For Bush to match Clinton's economy, the DOW would have to be above 20,000. And he had a very cooperative Republican congress to work with. I guess he's still got 7 months to do it.

If Clinton inherited an economic windfall through peace time, what does that say about Bush 43 going into war? If Clinton's economy benefitted from cutting welfare programs, what does it say about Bush's bank bailouts, oil subsidies, and tax cuts for those who don't need them? Especially in a time of war.

Not really sure why you won't admit Bush trashed our economy. What truth am I missing?

And Clinton didn't cut back the military. Most of his defense FY allocations grew with each succeeding year, reversing the cutbacks that Reagan began and Bush 41 continued. Clinton did not inherit a growing economy. Why do you think Bush 41 lost a second term?

The oil game is pretty simple. If you fix the supply, the price goes up. OPEC knows this, and so do our oil companies. It also helps that oil companies stifle competition with their mergers. Basic supply and demand obviously applies here, but not quite as simply as you put it. Why shouldn't we limit how they stack the game, if it helps the overall economy?

You think the middle east is stable? You bring up Saddam's nuclear "program" when even Bush mocked himself at a press correspondence dinner over the subject? You find oil ties of Bush, Cheney, and Rice utterly uninteresting with regards to this topic, while looking at Clinton and Obama's book profits for answers?

There just isn't any cohesion in your arguments, and I don't see why there is such loyalty to this ideology. Do you enjoy high oil prices? Hell, even shareholders of ExxonMobil and Halliburton heavily question the decisions of their boards. Why shouldn't the rest of us? (Disclosure: I own and have owned plenty of oil stocks outright of in funds.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Economics Student
Then how do you explain the record profits the oil companies have been making recently? That blows your argument to smithereens.

Oil company profits have skyrocketed because the price of crude is now about $125 a barrel when just a year ago it was half that. The price of a barrel of crude is set daily on a trading market where most of the buying and selling is NOT done by actual distributors but market speculators. Much of the oil market is now moved by traders who buy and sell oil futures as an inflation and dollar hedge. An undetermined but very large amount of those contracts are on margin (borrowed funds) which makes it a very fast and heavy trading market.

That has nothing to do with the gas tax and whether a holiday would be passed on to consumers. It would. The problem is that it does nothing to solve the underlying problem of the oil production and oil trading markets. In other words, whether you pay 3.95 a gallon for premium or 3.81 or 3.87 a gallon, it's still too much for the average American.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Oil company profits have skyrocketed because the price of crude is now about $125 a barrel when just a year ago it was half that. The price of a barrel of crude is set daily on a trading market where most of the buying and selling is NOT done by actual distributors but market speculators. Much of the oil market is now moved by traders who buy and sell oil futures as an inflation and dollar hedge. An undetermined but very large amount of those contracts are on margin (borrowed funds) which makes it a very fast and heavy trading market.

That has nothing to do with the gas tax and whether a holiday would be passed on to consumers. It would. The problem is that it does nothing to solve the underlying problem of the oil production and oil trading markets. In other words, whether you pay 3.95 a gallon for premium or 3.81 or 3.87 a gallon, it's still too much for the average American.

Give me a break. We Americans consume way too much oil, far more per capita than most other developed countries. It's long past time we started getting serious about energy conservation and independence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith
According to your graph, China's oil consumption doubled from 1991 to 2001, and we had cheap gas. From 2001 to 2005, China's consumption went up 50%, and the price doubled if you compare Dec 2001 and Dec 2005 gas prices.

The current gas run up has more to do with Bush's housing bubble and the need to drop interest rates, even if it trashes our dollar. You can almost graph point for point drops in the interest rates and the rising price of oil, and OPEC itself admits this is the cause. To tie high gas prices to a working surge seems extremely tenuous. I'm willing to listen if you can strengthen your argument.

Say what you will about Clinton's tech "bubble", the overall market came out very much in the black even during the bottom of that rollercoaster. Whatever gain might have been seen in the housing market has been completely wiped out, and we're not done. For Bush to match Clinton's economy, the DOW would have to be above 20,000. And he had a very cooperative Republican congress to work with. I guess he's still got 7 months to do it.

If Clinton inherited an economic windfall through peace time, what does that say about Bush 43 going into war? If Clinton's economy benefitted from cutting welfare programs, what does it say about Bush's bank bailouts, oil subsidies, and tax cuts for those who don't need them? Especially in a time of war.

Not really sure why you won't admit Bush trashed our economy. What truth am I missing?

And Clinton didn't cut back the military. Most of his defense FY allocations grew with each succeeding year, reversing the cutbacks that Reagan began and Bush 41 continued. Clinton did not inherit a growing economy. Why do you think Bush 41 lost a second term?

The oil game is pretty simple. If you fix the supply, the price goes up. OPEC knows this, and so do our oil companies. It also helps that oil companies stifle competition with their mergers. Basic supply and demand obviously applies here, but not quite as simply as you put it. Why shouldn't we limit how they stack the game, if it helps the overall economy?

You think the middle east is stable? You bring up Saddam's nuclear "program" when even Bush mocked himself at a press correspondence dinner over the subject? You find oil ties of Bush, Cheney, and Rice utterly uninteresting with regards to this topic, while looking at Clinton and Obama's book profits for answers?

There just isn't any cohesion in your arguments, and I don't see why there is such loyalty to this ideology. Do you enjoy high oil prices? Hell, even shareholders of ExxonMobil and Halliburton heavily question the decisions of their boards. Why shouldn't the rest of us? (Disclosure: I own and have owned plenty of oil stocks outright of in funds.)

Well said,sir!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...