taken from Jerome Armstrong on mydd: "Now the difference has extended to the gas tax holiday. It's the type of popular idea that Republicans continually cream progressives on with the working class. McCain came out for the typical Republican position of depleting tax revenue by having a 'gas tax holiday' and Obama came out against it, mocking the idea as a gimmick, by saying it would only save individuals $20 a month. First, by making the claim that this only saves individuals $20 bucks a month, Obama doesn't realize how out-of-touch and elitist that sounds to the average low-wage earner who would view it as their 'best day in weeks' to find a Jackson laying on the sidewalk. Second, when he was a state senator, in 2000, Obama voted for a six-month 5 percent gas tax holiday. That story ends with McCain having Obamaflakes for breakfast.
Clinton struck it down the middle, saying yes to the gas tax and that we are going to pay for it using the windfall profits of the oil companies. "
Here Krugman completely disagrees with me, but I think he makes a good point: "John McCain has a really bad idea on gasoline, Hillary Clinton is emulating him (but with a twist that makes her plan pointless rather than evil), and Barack Obama, to his credit, says no...Just to be clear: I don’t regard this as a major issue. It’s a one-time thing, not a matter of principle, especially because everyone knows the gas-tax holiday isn’t actually going to happen. Health care reform, on the other hand, could happen, and is very much a long-term issue — so poisoning the well by in effect running against universality, as Obama has, is a much more serious breach." http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
You know damn well what we need is a Dem willing to say that this idea is not only not what we need, it is the opposite of what we need. The US needs to start figuring out ways to keep people off the roads, not figuring out ways to get them on the road.
If the Republicans can actually beat us on this message, it is only because we are too timid to say the right thing. Less driving, higher gas prices = good. SUVs, more driving = bad.
I know, I know, we might lose your beloved white, working-class males, "Hillary's people," but we might just gain some young people and independents who realize that the environment is an important issue.
Armstrong is wrong that it would save $20 a month anyway...you would need to use 109 gallons a month to save $20. People who use 109 gallons a month are the problem. Obama did not vote for a gas holiday in Illinois. He voted "present" in an attempt to send the bill back to committee.
As for Krugman, he's been anti-Obama for awhile. Yes, I wish Obama's health care plan was better, but let's not pretend Hillary's has a snowball's chance of getting out of Congress. Plus, we both know that universal single-payer health care is the answer, but few in our party have the balls to say it.
The idea of lowering the price of gasoline by reducing the gas tax, even temporarily, is batshit insane.
It's another in a long line of Republican moves to pretend to help people by directly giving them money in the short term even though it absolutely screws them in the long term.
It also continues the awesome Republican tradition of privatizing all profit and publicizing the cost and related risks - and it reinforces the idea that the framework we should be using to evaluate public policy is not "how many people does this help, how broadly and how much?" but "what does this do for me RIGHT NOW." Needless to say, that's stupid.
As well, the tax is not the problem. The weak dollar, peak oil, and profit-gouging by oil companies have a lot more to do with high gas prices than the pathetic excuse for a tax that's in place. Pretending that reducing the gas tax is going to help solve the problem is like pretending a $300/person one-time tax rebate is going to stimulate the economy.... ah, hell.
Barack gives up the crucial point on the debate on health care---before we even get to the table.
But on Gas taxes...He is taking a stand... edumacating us "stupid voters"...such a valient stand that he demands to be counted as "present"
I am just sayin... you have to win the election first. and the D's fall into this trap of talking down to "ordinary voters"
I agree gas guzzlers are bad....no money is spent on public transit (gas tax won't help that) ...and ordinary voters ought to care more about the environment.
look elections are not won by who has the "balls" (your sexist framing not mine) to speak the truth to voters, it is who has the political ability and acumen to win the white house, and then speak whatever f'in truth to whomever one wishes.
"...who has the political ability and acumen to win the white house, and then speak whatever f'in truth to whomever one wishes."
Tell that to Al Gore and John Kerry. Running as Republican-lite did them worlds of good.
I agree that we fall into the trap of talking down to voters. It is exactly what Hillary is doing right now. She's going to endorse an idea that is the opposite of smart because she thinks voters are stoopid. Jesus "Fucking" Christ. If she actually can't beat McCain when he proposes a monumentally dumb idea, what the fuck are we having the election for?
You and I have long disagreed about electoral strategy. (People are still amazed that you are the moderate in this debate.) When was the last time your strategy of running to the center actually worked? Maybe, maybe 1992. Still not sure that exactly worked out terribly well for us, as Bush ran as a born-again Bill Clinton (except we wasn't going to get us involved in any needless wars) and the people ate it up.
Aren't you in the least bit tired of giving in on your beliefs in the hopes that if you elect the Dem running as a Republican, then maybe he or she will "do the right thing" once in office? When was the last time that worked for us? Because it didn't under Bill Clinton. His big accomplishments are NAFTA, "ending welfare," and presiding over a booming economy. No problem with the last one, but not sure how much he had to do with it. He accomplished nothing on gay rights, health care, race relations, gender equality, energy use, unions, etc. Sure, he was better than Bush, but then so was George H.W. Bush.
What do you see in Hillary that leads you to believe that her administration would be better on any of these issues than Bill's was?
look I am not deluded into thinking that Hill is some kind of liberal hero.
it is that I don't think her opponent is genuine, or truthful....
lets revisit the stupid gas tax argument again for a moment...
as reported in the AP, BO didn't just vote present... he f'in voted 3 TIMES for a gas holiday and even joked that he wanted signs at the pump so voters knew he did it.
Just because BO says something doesn't make it true, and for all his talk, I don't see him being a progressive leader. He is the one that talks about compromise already with the right. He is the one that doesn't see blue states or red states. His "post" partisan rhetoric will be the ultimate "third way " crap, and he will sell progressives out with compromises.
7 comments:
taken from Jerome Armstrong on mydd:
"Now the difference has extended to the gas tax holiday. It's the type of popular idea that Republicans continually cream progressives on with the working class. McCain came out for the typical Republican position of depleting tax revenue by having a 'gas tax holiday' and Obama came out against it, mocking the idea as a gimmick, by saying it would only save individuals $20 a month. First, by making the claim that this only saves individuals $20 bucks a month, Obama doesn't realize how out-of-touch and elitist that sounds to the average low-wage earner who would view it as their 'best day in weeks' to find a Jackson laying on the sidewalk. Second, when he was a state senator, in 2000, Obama voted for a six-month 5 percent gas tax holiday. That story ends with McCain having Obamaflakes for breakfast.
Clinton struck it down the middle, saying yes to the gas tax and that we are going to pay for it using the windfall profits of the oil companies. "
I am just saying...
Here Krugman completely disagrees with me, but I think he makes a good point:
"John McCain has a really bad idea on gasoline, Hillary Clinton is emulating him (but with a twist that makes her plan pointless rather than evil), and Barack Obama, to his credit, says no...Just to be clear: I don’t regard this as a major issue. It’s a one-time thing, not a matter of principle, especially because everyone knows the gas-tax holiday isn’t actually going to happen. Health care reform, on the other hand, could happen, and is very much a long-term issue — so poisoning the well by in effect running against universality, as Obama has, is a much more serious breach."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
for your consideration...
ez,
You know damn well what we need is a Dem willing to say that this idea is not only not what we need, it is the opposite of what we need. The US needs to start figuring out ways to keep people off the roads, not figuring out ways to get them on the road.
If the Republicans can actually beat us on this message, it is only because we are too timid to say the right thing. Less driving, higher gas prices = good. SUVs, more driving = bad.
I know, I know, we might lose your beloved white, working-class males, "Hillary's people," but we might just gain some young people and independents who realize that the environment is an important issue.
Armstrong is wrong that it would save $20 a month anyway...you would need to use 109 gallons a month to save $20. People who use 109 gallons a month are the problem. Obama did not vote for a gas holiday in Illinois. He voted "present" in an attempt to send the bill back to committee.
As for Krugman, he's been anti-Obama for awhile. Yes, I wish Obama's health care plan was better, but let's not pretend Hillary's has a snowball's chance of getting out of Congress. Plus, we both know that universal single-payer health care is the answer, but few in our party have the balls to say it.
The idea of lowering the price of gasoline by reducing the gas tax, even temporarily, is batshit insane.
It's another in a long line of Republican moves to pretend to help people by directly giving them money in the short term even though it absolutely screws them in the long term.
It also continues the awesome Republican tradition of privatizing all profit and publicizing the cost and related risks - and it reinforces the idea that the framework we should be using to evaluate public policy is not "how many people does this help, how broadly and how much?" but "what does this do for me RIGHT NOW." Needless to say, that's stupid.
As well, the tax is not the problem. The weak dollar, peak oil, and profit-gouging by oil companies have a lot more to do with high gas prices than the pathetic excuse for a tax that's in place. Pretending that reducing the gas tax is going to help solve the problem is like pretending a $300/person one-time tax rebate is going to stimulate the economy.... ah, hell.
Barack gives up the crucial point on the debate on health care---before we even get to the table.
But on Gas taxes...He is taking a stand... edumacating us "stupid voters"...such a valient stand that he demands to be counted as "present"
I am just sayin... you have to win the election first. and the D's fall into this trap of talking down to "ordinary voters"
I agree gas guzzlers are bad....no money is spent on public transit (gas tax won't help that) ...and ordinary voters ought to care more about the environment.
look elections are not won by who has the "balls" (your sexist framing not mine) to speak the truth to voters, it is who has the political ability and acumen to win the white house, and then speak whatever f'in truth to whomever one wishes.
Just sayin....
"...who has the political ability and acumen to win the white house, and then speak whatever f'in truth to whomever one wishes."
Tell that to Al Gore and John Kerry. Running as Republican-lite did them worlds of good.
I agree that we fall into the trap of talking down to voters. It is exactly what Hillary is doing right now. She's going to endorse an idea that is the opposite of smart because she thinks voters are stoopid. Jesus "Fucking" Christ. If she actually can't beat McCain when he proposes a monumentally dumb idea, what the fuck are we having the election for?
You and I have long disagreed about electoral strategy. (People are still amazed that you are the moderate in this debate.) When was the last time your strategy of running to the center actually worked? Maybe, maybe 1992. Still not sure that exactly worked out terribly well for us, as Bush ran as a born-again Bill Clinton (except we wasn't going to get us involved in any needless wars) and the people ate it up.
Aren't you in the least bit tired of giving in on your beliefs in the hopes that if you elect the Dem running as a Republican, then maybe he or she will "do the right thing" once in office? When was the last time that worked for us? Because it didn't under Bill Clinton. His big accomplishments are NAFTA, "ending welfare," and presiding over a booming economy. No problem with the last one, but not sure how much he had to do with it. He accomplished nothing on gay rights, health care, race relations, gender equality, energy use, unions, etc. Sure, he was better than Bush, but then so was George H.W. Bush.
What do you see in Hillary that leads you to believe that her administration would be better on any of these issues than Bill's was?
look I am not deluded into thinking that Hill is some kind of liberal hero.
it is that I don't think her opponent is genuine, or truthful....
lets revisit the stupid gas tax argument again for a moment...
as reported in the AP, BO didn't just vote present... he f'in voted 3 TIMES for a gas holiday and even joked that he wanted signs at the pump so voters knew he did it.
Just because BO says something doesn't make it true, and for all his talk, I don't see him being a progressive leader. He is the one that talks about compromise already with the right. He is the one that doesn't see blue states or red states. His "post" partisan rhetoric will be the ultimate "third way " crap, and he will sell progressives out with compromises.
That is my prediction....
Post a Comment