We have the same number-and name- of economists we trust.

the previous two presidential elections. No matter if elite is a good or a bad thing in his mind, or if he can argue that many of the people who throw the word around with derision are actually elite themselves (see Bush, George W.), I don’t believe that WKJM is so daft as to not understand that politically, the label carries an enormous amount of baggage with it — none of it good.

Glad you’re feeling better.

hen reading Josh Marshall was actually an enriching experience?

to see whether you guys had any integrity on this issue. Nope.

I guess those talking points abut Obama being an empty suit and Hillary being a policy wonk are nonoperative now that academic “elitism” (i.e. knowing the fuck about what you are talking about) is Teh Uncool with the Real Americans. Too bad. That argument actually had some saliency. Bashing academics and latte drinkers? Not so much.

BTW, Krugman’s analysis was that Hillary’s plan would have no effect on prices paid by consumers. Also, the conclusion that it would be merely “pointless” and not “evil” was predicated on the implementation of an offsetting tax increase on oil company profits. Thus speaketh the only economist on the planet who you listen to.

Academic “elitism” = knowing the fuck about what you are talking about

Really? That’s one person’s opinion.

that the problem with Bush is that he’s been listening to learned experts too much…well, good luck with that one.

Academic integrity / honesty = not distorting facts and views regarding what the fuck you’re talking about.

“knowing what the fuck you’re talking about” does not always or necessarily come from the elite.

Elitism = condescending attitude toward those less privileged than the creative class…

but, hey, what do I know, I’m just an academic.

And yes, we, Correntians, still love wonkishness over inspirational nothingness. And we think ordinary people’s concerns matter.

because he doesn’t like the tax on the oil companies. He did vote for the Bush/Cheney energy bill, after all. And since he has been for a gas tax holiday in the past, it’s hard to see otherwise.

is Hillary calling economists “elites”.

The question was clear. What economists, if any, support the gas-tax holiday as good policy. Hillary’s reponse was that we don’t need to listen to ANY economists: “I’m not going to put my lot in with economists”.

Hello? Those are the “elites” she’s talking about. Not pundits. Not politicians. Not bloggers. Economists. You know, people who, like, actually read books and study how taxes affect prices and consumption of goods. Those latte-drinking “elitist” academics.

Many academic are wrong: proof by contradiction - Assume all academic are right, since many academic support Obama, therefore, those who support Obama are wrong, wrong, wrong. Contradiction.

For the general JM problem, I believe he brain washed himself. The old JM would’ve never think of elite as an important or worth paying attention to. It’s really very sad.

One day, JM, Kos and the other cult members will go through reprogramming and their self worth will be zero.

Pfft. I hear her response as, I’m not going to do the things so-called economic experts say; I’ll make my own judgments, thanks. It’s similar to the question from the ABC debate (I think it was there) about deferring to “the generals” or not, which both she and Obama correctly answered in terms of their own presidential Commander In Chief status.

The remark will probably make for a nice low-level lekking among the Obama contingent — witness TPM already starting to strut — but IMHO it’s not even a gaffe.

I’m reposting this from the gas tax and health care thread
http://www.correntewire.com/creative_cla…
On the holiday gas tax. I know that my family always drive

from here to there, because of gas we have been looking at

air fare to see if it is cheaper to fly than to drive. We also try

to get more cousins in one car, if there are 2 that might

drive a separate car for a family vacation we will fly them,

usually it is cheaper than spending the gas, etc.

I see the holiday tax benefitting the working class primarily,

secondarily it would benefit on down, and not as much on

up.
Considering how depressed our economy is, and yes it’s

not a cure all but its a small thing. I do not understand why

Obama would not have gotten on the gas tax deal if for no

other reason than to make people feel better.
Bandaids aren’t going to heal my boo-boo, but they feel

nice, especially if mom gives it a little kiss.

Try to actually give a reason and some semblance of an argument if you are going to go on the attack, otherwise it is so much “kool-aid dust in the wind”./Kansas\

Judging anyone’s integrity via an informal blog is pretty damn stupid btw.

Krugman’s consumers must not travel during holidays, he needs to get in touch with the middle class. Where did he dredge his statistics from? Were they mean, median or mode, what’s his range? Where is the top and the bottom, Is he going from years or from months? What are his target group for the study?
Is he adding in the additional benefit to the economy by those who travel versus those who decide to stay home and not travel due to gas prices?

Do you find it annoying to for something that the other side says doesn’t matter. Well if it doesn’t matter why the hell is Obama ranting and raving about it like a lunatic? It must impact someone, if it impacts no one he is being petty and churlish. Two qualities that I can do without in a Presidential Hopeful. The operative word is Hope.

“The great divide in this country is not by race or even income, it’s by those who think they are better than everyone else and think they should play by a different set of rules,” —Bill Clinton

put it well:

I’m not saying HRC is George Bush. And I’m not suggesting economists have all the answers. But when economists tell a president or a presidential candidate that his or her idea is dumb – and when all respectable economists around America agree that it’s a dumb idea – it’s probably wise for the president or presidential candidate to listen. When the president or candidate doesn’t, and proudly defends the policy by saying she’s “not going to put my lot in with economists,” we’ve got a problem, folks.

Is this really so hard to grasp? Of course economists can make mistakes. It is a strawman argument to claim that anyone is suggesting otherwise. But when you can’t find a single economist to support you on an economic issue…doesn’t that give you pause?

Or let’s flip it around. If Hillary doesn’t have a reason for supporting the gas-tax holiday that is rooted in economic principles, what is she basing her proposal on? And why does she think that she is right and all economists, liberal or conservative, are wrong?

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/

Hillary’s plan differs from Sen. McCain’s in that it is financed with a windfall profits tax on oil companies. Krugman, who does not support Hillary’s plan, acknowledges that her plan will not increase profits for the oil industry.

To pay for the gas tax holiday, Hillary is calling for a windfall tax on the oil companies’ 2008 profits. It’s an immediate proposal. Hillary has never proposed a tax on 2008 profits previously.

Hillary would continue the windfall tax on 2009 profits and beyond, and that revenue would go to her strategic energy fund and for renewable energy.

- Sen. Obama voted three times for a gas tax holiday in 2000 when gas prices were less than $2 a gallon.

- Kip Tew, the top advisor to Obama’s Indiana campaign is an energy lobbyist. Tew said recently, “I’m not running away from the fact that I’m a lobbyist. I have a healthy client list, and I’m proud of it.”

The choice is simple: Senator Obama wants the American people to pay the gas tax this summer but Senator Clinton thinks Big Oil should.

The Clinton gas tax holiday is financed exclusively through a tax on windfall profits from oil companies and keeps the Highway Transportation Trust fund intact. Hillary opposed a plan in 2000 for a gas tax holiday because it was financed with transportation funds.

Sen. Obama voted three times for a gas tax holiday in 2000 when gas prices were less than $2 a gallon.

All of this is substantiated by newspaper articles and is in record, all of the records are claims are on the link at the top of this post.

“The great divide in this country is not by race or even income, it’s by those who think they are better than everyone else and think they should play by a different set of rules,” —Bill Clinton

To boldly go where morons have gone before.

————————————————————————
All the high-flown speeches in the world don’t amount to a pile of horseshit without being grounded in the mundane machinery of the state- Anglachel

Feague to replace haka, seeing it in action helps.

“The great divide in this country is not by race or even income, it’s by those who think they are better than everyone else and think they should play by a different set of rules,” —Bill Clinton

… or anything that had some sort of verification process I’d be a lot less willing to say Fuck the (self-proclaimed) elites. Einstein, after all, was pretty elite; ditto Louis Pasteur, Joseph Lister.

But I’m sure there were elite phrenologists, back in the day, too, and there was a lot of heavy sighing and chin-stroking when people decided to pay no attention to them.

These are economists we’re talking about. Their work product is almost pure ideology. We’re talking about a gaggle of Village people who get paid to go in the teebee (and how nice of Hillary to give them the chance to do that). And their profession is deeply implicated in the Conservative Movements destruction of the middle class, whose effects those who are willing to listen can see today. In fact, one could make the case that it’s listening to these guys that’s “the problem,” and ignoring them — maybe coming up with some fresh ideas — that’s the solution. I bet there were plenty of elite economists who got their panties in a twist during FDR’s day, too. Things worked out OK, though.

So, when I get one trustworthy guy with a good record of calling his shot on political economy — that would be Krugman — I’m going to go with his judgment. His judgment is that the gas tax is trivial issue. Maybe it will help a few people in need. Is that so hard to understand?

And I’m only confirmed in my view when the usual concern trolls show up and roll out the dropcloth to soak up the fluids from a heavy session of lekkage, and the Boiz collectively head for the fainting couch.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

between “elite” and “elitist.”

————————————————————————
All the high-flown speeches in the world don’t amount to a pile of horseshit without being grounded in the mundane machinery of the state- Anglachel

Until it comes time to find out whether the Unity Pony takes child size, or adult size. Hold your fire.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I could address your comment by debating the merits of the gas-tax holiday. I could also point out that Obama has stated that the gas-tax holiday that he supported in Illinois “didn’t work” and that learning from one’s mistakes is generally the hallmark of an intelligent person.

But that is all secondary. The important questions are why — if the proposal makes economic sense, as you appear to claim — do no economists endorse it?

And, even more importantly, why does the fact that Hillary is unaware of any endorsement not phase her support of it? Why is she echoing RW attacks against academia by calling economic scholars “elitists”?

And, lastly, why, if Lambert has “absolute trust” in Paul Krugman’s opinion, does the fact that Krugman all but calls Hillary’s proposal a stinker have no affect on his analysis?

myiq2xu: Ad hominem attacks are easy. Answering the above questions is not.

She’s been proposing a windfall profits tax since at least March, I heard it for myself on the stump. It wasn’t connected to the gas tax holiday, which is why this maneuver is brilliant. Her original idea of the tax wasn’t getting any traction with the media, but when McCain comes out for his plan, Clinton immediately jumped in with a better one, taking the media attention away from McCain, and making Obama look out of touch with working voters, since he came out against it.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Krugman doesn’t say what you say he does. Please, stop pretending, because you do your candidate no good.

Why doesn’t Obama want to help working people with the gas tax?

It’s simple. Because he’s already written them off. That’s the key issue here, not a wankfest from the Boiz and our local concern trolls.

NOTE I should explain “absolute trust.” By that I do not mean that I —unlike the members of a cult, for example — blindly believe whatever he says. It means I trust him to write and advocate with integrity. I trust the man, though I may reserve judgment on any of his views.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Marginally better. Directed wrath, instead of 360-degrees 24/7 wrath.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

My grandma said “Never argue with a pig. It wastes your time and amuses the pig.”

————————————————————————
All the high-flown speeches in the world don’t amount to a pile of horseshit without being grounded in the mundane machinery of the state- Anglachel

His judgment is that it’s a trivial issue.

No, his judgment was that a gas-tax holiday is “pointless” if, and only if, it is accompanied by a windfall-profit tax (which is a political non-starter). In other words, the tax cut is only not terrible policy if, through slight of hand, you don’t really cut the taxes.

And that’s just the policy reasons for opposing it. That doesn’t even get into the fact that Hillary has just given McCain political cover for proposing an idiotic and counter-productive policy and slammed even liberal economists (yes, they exist) as “elitists”.

Aren’t you tired of corporate p.r. flaks getting equal or greater respect than professors because movement conservatives have systematically demonized academia? Guess not.

We know you pretty well, by now, eh?

Oh, but as for the politics of it — Hillary stole McCain’s talking point and made it work to help real Democrats. That’s putting it to the Republicans, not giving them cover. Sheesh.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Especially long-term. Higher gas taxes decrease consumption, something we need to work on. I just believe getting massive public support behind a windfall profits tax, outweighs the temporary effect of said bad policy. It will allow us to eventually fund a better long term policy.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Economists(as a group) never agree, and when they do, they are all usually wrong, from my experience.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

I’m sure that there are economists that say that Clinton’s plan is sound. But if Clinton didn’t blow off the “economist” question, the next question would have been “but Robert Reich, who was secretary of Labor during the first Clinton administration, blah blah blah….” Clinton is smart enough not to play “dueling economists” on this one, and to focus on people’s needs.

The Obots love to point to the study that estimated that gas prices in Illinois went down only 3% when the 5% gas tax holiday was implemented there. What they don’t tell you is that when the holiday was over, prices rose only 4%.

Ultimately, the key impact of a gas tax holiday would be psychological — the idea that people in DC are “doing what they can” in the short-term would be a confidence builder. The rise in gas prices is hurting the economy in very big ways — the sense of helplessness and uncertainty in the face of rising gas prices doesn’t just mean that people have less to spend on other stuff, it means that they will cut back even further.

Space

1. (n) The empty portion in your head where your brain is supposed to be.
2. (n) The word to used to describe the universe or out above the earth’s atmosphere.
3. (n) An area between something that is usually empty.
4. (v) To have a blank look on one’s face as if retarded.

1. Bill has a lot of space between his ears.
2. I wish I could kick your ass into space.
3. You should get that space between your teeth fixed Billy Bob.
4. When Jim was asked what his name was, all he could do is just space.

————————————————————————
All the high-flown speeches in the world don’t amount to a pile of horseshit without being grounded in the mundane machinery of the state- Anglachel

Why doesn’t Obama want to help working people with the gas tax?

It will help working people? Fuck, man! Why didn’t you say so? And here I was relying on the wisdom of every single person in the country who has passed an economics course and understands that it will be a cold day in Baghdad before oil companies pass on the savings to consumers. Why didn’t you just say that we were all wrong and you and Hillary have discovered an exception to the laws of supply and demand?

Space emits vacuous rhetoric, just like his candidate. Paul refutes him with real evidence and reasoning, just like our candidate. Haw.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Nit-picking and criticizing others doesn’t help.

Give us the benefit of your vast wisdom and extensive edjumaction.

BTW - I passed an Economics course. Upper division even.

————————————————————————
All the high-flown speeches in the world don’t amount to a pile of horseshit without being grounded in the mundane machinery of the state- Anglachel

I’m sure that there are economists that say that Clinton’s plan is sound.

No, there aren’t. That’s the point. She was asked point blank and couldn’t come up with any. There are no “dueling economists”. There is no duel.

And, for argument’s sake, even if there are economists who favor the holiday, Hillary was unaware of them. Clearly this is a plan that was crafted by her campaign staff and NOT her economic advisors (like she needs those elitist yahoos anymore, anyway!).

I love how everybody assumes that I am an “Obot” simply because I ask Hillary to not engage in cheap political stunts that harm Democrats in the long run. And I have repeatedly stated my issues with both Obama and Hillary, always from a progressive perspective.

I honestly checked back with this blog because I thought that there was a good chance that Hillary’s statements would trouble people. Because many of the posters here were not originally Hillary supporters, I wondered if the faux populism would bother people here. Apparently not. Good day.

The choice is simple: Senator Obama wants the American people to pay the gas tax this summer but Senator Clinton thinks Big Oil should.

Of course Senator Obama doesn’t want the oil companies to pay. His vote on the “energy” bill is pretty strong evidence of that.

http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/

Is it fate that I am scheduled to have a root canal on Tuesday, the day of the IN and NC primaries?

Is Obama going to have a root canal that day, too?
Please let there be a god…..

I sure hope the drugs don’t wear off until election night is over…I’m sure the punditry will be excruciating…

Senator Obama wants the American people to pay the gas tax this summer but Senator Clinton thinks Big Oil should.

This is false.

As Krugman stated:

It’s Econ 101 tax incidence theory: if the supply of a good is more or less unresponsive to the price, the price to consumers will always rise until the quantity demanded falls to match the quantity supplied. Cut taxes, and all that happens is that the pretax price rises by the same amount.

[emphasis mine]

The gas-tax holiday will NOT save consumers much, if any, money. Period. End of story. Repeating it endlessly and clapping louder won’t make a lie true.

What is your solution?

————————————————————————
All the high-flown speeches in the world don’t amount to a pile of horseshit without being grounded in the mundane machinery of the state- Anglachel

It’s the “making people feel better”. And a “half a tank of gas”, as Obama said, would do a lot for my family, who exists on a grocery budget of $300/mo, especially as the prices trickled down to everything that is moved by truck.

But it is smart politics regardless. You just choose to call it “pandering”.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

McCain believes that he is going to be running against Obama. McCain has discovered that Obama has a real weakness with working class white voters. McCain has systematically been going to midwestern towns and actually spouting populist ideas and pandering big time. If you remember, the week before, he was in New Orleans saying that if he were president, he would have been down in New Orleans the next day.

So McCain announces his gas tax rollback and yes, it was pandering. Hillary understands what’s going on so she signs on with a twist…the populist notion of the windfall profits tax to heavily tax the oil companies making obscene profits these days (no doubt as a result of having 2 oilmen in the White House).

So Obama’s campaign decides to oppose them both and take the reasoned, supported by economists and anti-populist stance that this tax rollback is small, meaningless and harmful - great…now he’s got the burden of selling it. The problem of course is that it reinforces the notion that Obama doesn’t care about the white working class, the ’bitter’ and ’cling’ people who Axelrod says don’t vote for Democrats anyway.

The conclusion is clear…Obama thinks that he can win on principle but in the meantime, he continues to erode what used to be the Democratic base. The people that for the past few decades, the only Democrat that got their votes was Bill Clinton.

I certainly admire how Obama has gotten this far in the Democratic primary while eschewing all populist notions to the point where he is ceding the working class to the Republican candidate McCain. There are some who are so delusional that think despite ceding this group that no Democrat in modern history has ever won the presidency without their support…he will win.

To that I can only say…I was under the impression that the Democrats actually wanted to win the presidential election this year but I guess not.

Aeryl, Krugman is telling you that the prices won’t trickle down. Do you understand that? You can argue that Krugman (and every other economist) is wrong if you want. But sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to hear their criticisms is rather unproductive.

myiq2xu, I am more than willing to have discussions about real solutions to energy prices. But they have to be grounded in reality. The reality is that we have few to no effective short-term fixes for the problem. If we accept that, it will increase the public pressure for real solutions. If we deny it, we are in the McCain/Bush-land of make believe.

Instead of denying that oil companies won’t cut prices in the event of a tax holiday (and blasting the credibility of economists in general), I would vastly prefer it if our Democratic leaders would build up the credibility of liberal economists. Use their findings to argue for the repeal of oil company subsidies, the enforcement of antitrust laws, increased environmental regulations, and more funding for alternative energy sources and science education in America.

Oh yeah, and addressing the fact that the value of the dollar is going down the toilet wouldn’t be a bad idea.

To that I can only say…I was under the impression that the Democrats actually wanted to win the presidential election this year but I guess not.

I believe that it is not necessary to lie to your constituents to get them to vote for you. Nor do I believe that it is a sign of respect for working class Americans to propose transparently bogus policies and assume that voters are too stupid to understand why the policies won’t work.

The best way for the Democrats to beat John McCain is to present a unified front against GOP bullshit. It really wouldn’t be too hard to “sell” the idea that the tax holiday is cheap pandering if the Democrats, in unison, denounced it and cited every Republican economist in the book to support that position. But it does make the case harder to make when the Clintons are pandering in lockstep with McCain.

That’s a pretty way of saying you don’t have shit to offer in the way of a real alternative.

Just like your ideoillogical false prophet, you offer sweet sounding platitudes in place of real solutions.

————————————————————————
All the high-flown speeches in the world don’t amount to a pile of horseshit without being grounded in the mundane machinery of the state- Anglachel

You write:

I believe that it is not necessary to lie to your constituents to get them to vote for you.

That’s why, in a nationally televised speech, Barack Obama should not have said that he gave his famous speech — you know, the speech that was so important that he didn’t mention it when he announced his Senate run, and they had to re-record, with applause, for the campaign ads because there was no copy of it — “in the midst of” his Senate campaign. He gave the speech in October 2002. He only declared for the Senate in January 2003. That’s a direct lie.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Its a pretty way of saying that America has choices. We can address problems like adults, recognizing that some solutions will take time. Or we can blindly place our trust in politicians who will blow sunshine up our asses.

Aeryl, Krugman is telling you that the prices won’t trickle down. Do you understand that?

The correct question is, “how do you respond to McCain’s gas tax holiday proposal?”

What you’re suggesting, which is telling people who are hurting economically that you’ll do nothing because, golly, you can’t think of anything that will actually help them spells PRESIDENT MCCAIN.

In politics we have to make bargains. We need a windfall profits tax. We need to beat McCain. Let’s trade a little tax populism kabuki for that.

just a solution.

So put up or STFU. Make a proposal.

————————————————————————
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.- John Fitzgerald Kennedy

But I accept that what you say is true. Are you saying that Obama lied about when his campaign began in order to heighten the “political cost” of making the speech? I am honestly asking because I have not heard that accusation before.

If so, let me say that I certainly believe that Obama is capable of telling such a lie.

But I am not an Obama supporter. I know that doesn’t seem to sink in around here, but it is true. If Obama tells lies, I feel no compunction to defend him. He’s a politician.

That being said, I personally find lies about facts and ego-enhancing biographical details (e.g. Tusla), while not irrelevant, to be less important than lies about policy. YMMV.

Or we can blindly place our trust in politicians who will blow sunshine up our asses.

You seriously think Obama is the _opposite_ of a politician who blows sunshine up our asses? Seriously?

And where is your blog?

————————————————————————
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.- John Fitzgerald Kennedy

The correct question is, “how do you respond to McCain’s gas tax holiday proposal?”

The answer is you tell them THE FUCKING TRUTH. You say:

“A gas-tax holiday will not work and is bad policy. The tax goes to fund critical highway infrastructure.

But that does not mean that we will not act to alleviate the burdens that face Americans because of high fuel prices. We want to encourage Americans who have alternative transportation options to drive less, so we are proposing a comprehensive tax-reduction package to make public transportation even more affordable.

But I understand that not all Americans have transportation options. Because many Americans must drive, we can temporarily relieve the burden on the working class by suspending payroll taxes. We can also reduce the demand-side pressures by suspending the purchase of oil for the strategic reserves.

Furthermore, the justice department should be directed to aggressively investigate and prosecute any antitrust law violations. Too often politicians are reduced to begging oil companies for mercy when increased competition in the market would be more effective in keeping prices down.”

These might not be the best or only ideas. I am open to discussion. But I would NEVER propose an idea that I thought didn’t work.

Space…
The best way for the Democrats to beat John McCain is to present a unified front against GOP bullshit. It really wouldn’t be too hard to “sell” the idea that the tax holiday is cheap pandering if the Democrats, in unison, denounced it and cited every Republican economist in the book to support that position. But it does make the case harder to make when the Clintons are pandering in lockstep with McCain.

Since when have the Democrats EVER provided a unified front?

Seriously…Obama has chosen to play Scrooge to everyone’s Christmas as some kind of reality experiment. This is why he keeps leaking support. This is why he characterizes this white working class as ’bitter people that cling to their religion and guns’

You and Obama can keep arguing the merits and I’m not going to disagree with your arguments but I am pointing out that the merits of the argument he’s making costs him votes…that’s the way politics works.

why shouldn’t the candidates be out there trying to win my vote by trying to win me a temporary, tiny tax holiday?

here in florida, we get a tax holiday on school supplies and clothes at the end of summer. i’m not a parent, so i don’t know fron first-hand experience if this helps lower-income families or not, but my guess is that it does.

we also [until this year, thank you dnc] had a tax holiday at the beginning of summer on hurricane supplies, the idea being that if people have a few weeks ahead of time to gradually build up their stores of batteries, drinking water, and non-perishable foodstuffs then there won’t be a panicked buying spree, emptying out the grocery shelves in the hours before a hurricane strike is imminent.

both of these are legitimate and worthy social goals, so i’m willing to forgo the tax revenues, since the whole point of collecting taxes in the first place, if you’re a liberal, is to pay for [gasp!] social goods.

with Al Gore and Wes Clark making the wish list and Howard Dean the fantasy list.

I see both Obama and Hillary as flawed candidates who have remarkably similar weaknesses: lack of executive experience, a propensity to give Republicans an undeserving benefit of the doubt, and a poor track record of fighting (and winning) against Republicans.

As for my blog, are you proposing I join the ranks of the Corrente Fellows? I accept!

you have an account - blog away.

and for the record…I’m gathering that a lot of us here were at one time, Edwards supporters

…. I have yet to see Paul’ substantive point on how the gas tax holiday could and did work, despite the vehement calls for substantive discussion on policy….

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

why shouldn’t the candidates be out there trying to win my vote by trying to win me a temporary, tiny tax holiday?

Because it won’t work? Because the proposal literally violates the laws of supply and demand? Do you all have so little faith in progressive ideas that you don’t believe that there are actual policies out there that can actually accomplish what Hillary proposes (relive some of the pain of high gas prices)?

Or do you think that it is a good long-term electoral strategy to propose ideas that you know in advance won’t work? What do you think will happen in November if the tax-holiday goes through during the Summer and there is no effect on gas prices…or prices rise? Do you think voters will reward Democrats for having promised them a unicorn?

Space writes:

Do you think voters will reward Democrats for having promised them a unicorn?

Well, space’s candidate, Obama, expects voters will reward him for promising them a Unity Pony!

NOTE Yes, I know space says he has no candidate, but since he’s suddenly been activated on the big Obama talking point… pas si bete…

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

pander to me!
Submitted by hipparchia on Mon, 2008-05-05 00:27.

why shouldn’t the candidates be out there trying to win my vote by trying to win me a temporary, tiny tax holiday?

I always love it when they pander to me too…especially when I recognize the pandering and thus can choose to accept or reject it as the situation arises.

As for the gas tax holiday…Bush’s veto pen would be out quicker than you could say, Barack Obama is apparently polling only 30% of the white vote in NC.

He lied when he said he gave the speech when he was running for the US Senate. He was running unopposed as the encumbant in his Illinois Senate seat in a very liberal anti-war district.

Too bad nobody called him on it at the time.

Or do you think that it is a good long-term electoral strategy to propose ideas that you know in advance won’t work? What do you think will happen in November if the tax-holiday goes through during the Summer and there is no effect on gas prices…or prices rise? Do you think voters will reward Democrats for having promised them a unicorn?

I don’t count McCain as a Democrat myself…

gas prices only kinda sorta follow the law of supply and demand, so worrying about violating it here is kinda sorta a non-starter.

sure, the theorists theorize that it won’t lower prices at the pump. it’s possible they’re right. if it’s implemented and prices rise anyway, voters will probably buy the spin that the war in iraq and/or the greedy oil companies are responsible for their tax savings being swallowed up. possibly a useable way to leverage voter sentiment against either the war or big oil later on.

i’m personally against it, but i don’t see it being a huge liability.

actually, being a card-carrying treehugger, i’m for high gas prices, but just out of curiosity, what proven policies for lowering gas prices did you have in mind?

would be one of the democrats’ more powerful weapons if they’d learn to wield it correctly [and more often]:

look! republicans hate you! again!

He’s already playing handball with the curb

Lambert, when you endorsed Hillary, you said you were doing so because you knew what you were getting with Hillary and you didn’t with Obama. To some extent I agree. Obama has always been pretty vague about his plans and his supporters seemed (in the beginning) more willing to take him on faith. An Obama Presidency seems riskier than a Clinton Presidency: both the upside and downside are greater.

And, yet, despite these uncertainties about Obama, I feel like I do know him and I feel like I just have an honest difference of opinion with him. Yes, he has promised “the Unity Pony,” and that bothers me. But I believe that he genuinely believes that he needs to reach across the aisle to get things done and bipartisanship isn’t a four-letter word. I may not agree with his approach…having seen the Dems play Charlie Brown to the GOP’s Lucy on too many occasions. But, hey, I do get Obama. He’s really just a New Democrat, circa 1988-1992.

Hillary, OTOH, just leaves me perplexed. It would be easier for me to dismiss her if she was just a flat-out, corporate sell-out. The ironic thing is that she actually DOES have a more progressive record on domestic issues than Obama. But there is something so unnerving about a candidate who, ostensibly, is very progressive, but who doesn’t seem to even comprehend why the Mark Penns and the Terry McAuliffes undermine that message. Or why she has a seeming aversion to the netroots. Or why she doesn’t want to rock the revolving-door lobbyist system. Or why, as a Senator for the past 8 years, she might need to explain why the perception that the Democrats in Congress have been feckless cowards is wrong.

If Obama sucks up to Fox News, I don’t like it. But at least he’ll tell you flat out that his plan is to appeal to independents and moderate Republicans. It makes sense. But there is something just creepy about Hillary palling around with Scaife and Murdoch and Sun Myung Moon. It’s just…unnecessary.

Same with this gas-prices stuff. I’m sure if you asked David Sirota, he’d give you a list longer than his arm of ways that you could reign oil companies in and provide relief to American workers and consumers. But instead of proposing a genuinely progressive solution, endorsed by liberal economists, Hillary proposes a bizarre plan that can’t work, gives cover to the GOP candidate, puts her own party on the line, and risks pissing off the affected constituents in six months when they discover that it doesn’t work.

I. Don’t. Get. It.

ya need a quick fix if you’re going to pander to the voters. tax breaks can be done quickly.

neither barack obama nor hilary clinton has shown any great desire to do much reining in of corporations. both of them would have made perfectly decent centrist pre-reagan republicans. they only look like lefties when compared to their present colleagues.

the number of actual real voters who are truly left of center is high. the slate of politicians we’ve had available to choose from for an entire generation now has been much further right than the general population.

bush is a republican president. if this republican president keeps vetoing popular, liberal legislation, then you have one more thing to point to when you say to voters: …and this is the treatment you’ll continue get if you elect another republican president.

Aeryl, Krugman is telling you that the prices won’t trickle down. Do you understand that? You can argue that Krugman (and every other economist) is wrong if you want. But sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to hear their criticisms is rather unproductive.

and Krugman is using an “Econ 101” analysis that assumes a linear relationship between price and demand.

Of course, talk to any gas station owner, and you will find out that gas prices continue to rise even when demand drops. Real consumers don’t act the way theoretical consumers do — and that’s the point. The economic theories assume that driving is primarily a discretionary activity — that people can and will just drive 1% less for every 1% increase in gas prices.

Which, of course, is a total crock. Most driving is non-discretionary — and when gas prices rise cutbacks occur in other spending, because people still have to get to work.

Same deal with “elite” economists on health care.

People don’t go get operated on just because the hospitals offering a special on gall bladder removal that week.

But economists think people behave that way, and so does the Village.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I was having a discussion about this with an Obama supporter who was making the point (which I have no doubt he got from TPM) that the gas tax holiday was pandering and rightwing policy.

I pointed out that under Hillary’s plan, things would be exactly the same as the status quo, except that a few dollars would be transferred from the oil companies to consumers.

His response was that there was no way the Republicans would allow a windfall tax on the oil companies to go through. My response: well, if that’s the case, then you’re back to Obama’s plan, but you’ve got another talking point issue to nail the Republicans on.

No good response. Hillary’s idea on this is better than Obama’s, period. Obama wants the status quo. Hillary is taking McCain’s gas tax holiday, turning it into a populist issue, and nailing the GOP’s ties to the oil companies. At the very least, credit Hillary with being clever. But don’t try to make this into some non-existent campaign issue.

How is Hillary’s plan on the gas tax holiday not progressive? It’s the very definition of progressive. It’s taking the status quo, and then transferring money from the haves (oil companies) to the have nots (gas consumers).

How does it differ from the status quo, other than as a wealth transfer? I have yet to see any serious economist claiming that a 3 month holiday on a very minor gas tax during $4/gallon driving season will impact long term demand. So what does Hillary’s plan do, other than take money from the oil companies and give to to drivers?

… is right wing policy?

Leaving aside all the pseud Econ 101 stuff — Are they demented?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

The way Hillary’s constructed her plan, in terms of political realities, there is no way this gets passed before the election.

She’s taken an issue that might have been seen as potent for the GOP (“it’ll lower your gas prices!”) and made it an issue that will be toxic for the GOP (“it’ll lower your gas prices, and the oil companies will pay for it!”)

There is literally no way the GOP minority, or the current President, will pass a (permanent!) windfall tax on the oil companies, and everyone knows this. So what Hillary has deftly done is defused an issue that might have gained some votes for McCain, and instead made it into an issue that will gain some votes for Hillary. I believe Karl Rove once called this political jiujitsu.

The fact that your candidate is too out-of-touch to understand the basic appeal of lower gas prices (this summer) to ordinary Americans doesn’t mean you guys need to blindly follow him and his acolytes into the abyss of a 3rd straight Presidential defeat.

Just find it interesting that you find Sen. Obama’s talking about reaching across the aisle admirable, while finding Sen. Clinton’s actual reaching across the aisle and winning over people who hated her weird and unnecessary.

Whatever your emotional response, I’m sure you can see how your position can be construed as fundamentally contradictory—-you like Obama’a theory but hate Clinton’s action.

Edited because I haven’t had enough coffee.