Let's put this year 2000 President Clinton quote in context. We were not in a recession in 2000, we probably are now. We were not in the midst of an historic economic and financial crisis in 2000, we are now. We were not facing rising unemployment in 2000, we are now. We were not facing $4 gallon gas prices in 2000, we are now.
OPEC was increasing production in 2000, it is not now. Hilary's proposal includes a windfall profit tax on oil companies, which was not on the table in 2000.
In 2008, every political candidate, including Senators Clinton, Edwards and Obama, as well as Republican President Bush, came out with economic stimulus packages to put money in the hands of voters/ consumers. All such stimulus packages, including those from the Senators, were dismissed by economists as election year political gimmicks.
So, if you want to play the "gotcha" game, why was Senator Obama in favor of election year tax give-aways derided by economists before he was against them? Yes, it's a stupid question -- but it is the level at which this posting is playing.
aquarius2
· 1 year ago
You know I am thinking Hillary's gas tax plan is like her campaign. Doesn't matter how many people tell her it is wrong she will push forward with what she wants.
Rob Mule
· 1 year ago
B-b-b-but the "hapless CNN" nooz team, Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough say all the Indiana and North Carolina hick illiterates love the idea!!!
aquarius2
· 1 year ago
ericgoldman
Are you saying that all the candidates were in favor of this gas tax holiday, because this is the issue. And while we were not in a recession in 2000 I furnished, just a couple of days ago, senate hearings on energy and high gas prices in the year 2000. It was a major issue then and continues to be a major issue.
So my question to you is, after the major Senate hearings on energy in 2000, what has Clinton done to reverse the findings? What has she done to bring these oil companies in line? Why is it just now before the elections that she wants do something for the little guy?
ericgoldman
· 1 year ago
Aquarius2
Clearly, I am not saying that all of the candidates were in favor of this gas tax holiday. Clearly, high energy and gas prices have been an issue since 2000 and beyond.
As for the concern that Hilary Clinton has ignored the situation until now, a quick google yielded this statement. To my eye, this speaks to a remarkable consistency of message on the part of Senator Clinton.
October 27, 2005
Statement by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Record Oil Company Profits
Clinton Challenges Oil Companies to Reinvest Profits in Strategic Energy Fund
Washington, DC
Today, in response to earnings reports announced this week by several oil companies, Senator Clinton issued the following statement:
“Today’s news of record profits by our nation’s oil companies further proves the point that it is time for them to step up to the plate and use the huge benefits they are reaping to become part of our nation’s energy solution. Now is the perfect time for oil companies, flush with cash, to transform themselves into energy companies and invest in technologies that will increase America’s energy independence. My proposal to establish a Strategic Energy Fund will do just that while helping consumers cope with spiraling energy costs, promoting adoption of existing clean energy and conservation technologies; and stimulating research.
“As Americans struggle to pay for gas at the pumps and heat for their homes, the oil companies have a responsibility to reinvest their soaring profits into strategies that help consumers and lessen our oil dependence. I find it outrageous that as the Republicans in Congress vote down the heating assistance that we know low income families will need this winter, their oil company cronies are sitting on record profits. It’s time for a new national energy strategy if we are to truly change our energy future. We need to become the world’s major supplier of new energy technologies, not just the world’s major consumer of oil.”
dances_with_beagles
· 1 year ago
Yes that is what is most disappointing. Rubes keep voting for her, but they just watch CNN and FOX; don't read the blogs.
dad
· 1 year ago
same. old. lies.
(Labels: gas, hillary clinton, lies)
Rob Mule
· 1 year ago
FYI-The word "illiterates" describes people who cannot read...anything.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
I watched Obama on Meet the Press explain why hewas against the gas tax. Obama said he supported an increase in the Illinois state gas tax while he was a rep there. Six months after passage the data suggested that the oil comp[anies just raised prices enough to pass on the tax increase to consumers, therefore, he views a rise in the gas tax, fed or satate, as a tax increase for consumers. He is probably right.
However, this logic creates a policy diconnect and begs another question; namely, why increase taxes on oil companies (windfall profits tax or whatever you want to call it) at all if the comaies will pass the increased tax cvosts on to the consumers? The problem is the oil companies, with the help of government inaction on the alterative fules front over time, have the consumers by the balls. The government and oil companies just work behid closed doors to determine who gets the "profits" and who gets the "taxes".
Bostonian_Queer_in_Dallas
· 1 year ago
Mmmm BMW will bring to the USA a sub mini all electric vehicle similar to the EV1 which was killed by GM. Mmmm I wonder if Hill-Billy will endorse corporate welfare bailout for Detroit when these little electric suckers start selling like hotcakes. And GM and Ford will be whining and crying to Washington that their profits are down. Boo hoo. Hey Hill-Billy? If you are Presnit, will you encourage consumers to go all electric? Or will you line the pockets of Detroit?
I guess the latter.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Just more jobs lost to a European company allowing technology to proceed with demand without being influenced by oil companies. Profits overseas.
vwcat
· 1 year ago
I live in Illinois and can tell you it does not work. period. Been there, done that and it's a crock. Drivers will never see a savings of even a penny.
sukabi1
· 1 year ago
In all fairness John, I saw a clip on the news last night where Hillary was advocate having the OIL COMPANIES pay the gas tax for the duration of the summer... it's still a rotten idea as the oil companies will double the cost of the tax and raise the price of a gallon accordingly... leaving us doubly screwed.
Mash
· 1 year ago
Sukabi1, the gas tax is paid by the oil companies, no the customer. The federal gas tax is a tax on oil companies for production.
So when Clinton says she wants to suspend the gas tax, she is saying she wants to give the oil companies a tax break. She HOPES the oil companies will pass the savings on to customers. No chance of that since supply is inelastic and demand is high.
jr
· 1 year ago
"I don't have a black pastor so I can flip flop"-Hillary
purplegirl
· 1 year ago
Someone should ask Hillary how much money the Highway Fund will lose when the tax is suspended and how she plans on making up the deficit. It's not like the pot is overflowing with cash so we can afford to stop funding it. We pay that tax for a reason, and the reason doesn't go away just because the money isn't there. For the small amount we will actually save, it's hardly worth it creating yet another deficit.
Soundboy_jeff_meanie
· 1 year ago
"In 2000, Bill Clinton opposed Hillary's gas tax plan" ---
of course he did... he knew that there was no indication that a 'tax-free gas holiday' would be passed on to the consumers.
the oil companies would love it though... just imagine, speculation pushes a barrel of oil to $140. $$$$
johnt66
· 1 year ago
we here at the internet have the best research teams in the world, so please let's find the vedio, where did he give the sppech and to whom, and start there, even if it an audio,let's get this fast.
Hillary Clinton: And one of my fundamental disagreements during this campaign with my opponent was when he called for the repeal of the gas tax. Now, the gas tax is one of those few taxes that New York actually gets more money from Washington than we send. And we are totally reliant on it to do things like finishing I-86 in the Southern Tier, or the fast- ferry harbor works up in Rochester, as well as the work we need to do here in the city.
sukabi1
· 1 year ago
Mash, I think you're confusing what taxes are what... the gas tax that Hillary and others are proposing either suspending or having the oil corps pay is this one, which we ALL pay every time we fill up. In addition to the federal gas tax, states and even some local city governments have added additional taxes to the cost of a gallon of gas -- all of which is added on AT THE PUMP, so it's you and me bub that are paying... not the oil corps.... In addition to this, the oil companies have been getting a pass on NOT paying royalties on the oil they take from PUBLIC lands.
Mash
· 1 year ago
Sukabi, I am afraid you are mistaken. The federal gas tax is levied on the oil companies, not the consumer. Your link to Wikipedia does not say what you think it says. Here's a primer on the gas tax courtesy of the Congressional Research Service: http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Transp...
I am not surprised you are confused. A lot of Hillary Clinton supporters are confused, and that is what Clinton is counting on. Here's the explanation of the tax from the CRS:
Economists know the gasoline excise tax as a "manufacturer's excise tax" because the government imposes it at production (i.e., the producer, refiner, or importer) for efficiency in collection. Economists think the tax is generally passed forward to the retailer translating into a higher retail gas sales price.
Again, Clinton's hope is that when the oil companies dont have to pay the tax, they will pass the savings on to the customer. As Bill Clinton pointed out in 2000, and as all economists now say, they do not believe that is likely to happen. The oil companies will simply pocket the difference.
sukabi1
· 1 year ago
Mash, I may be mistaken about how and who pays the tax... ultimately the oil companies PASS the tax on to the consumers, which was my point, and EVEN IF there was a temporary suspension of the tax for the summer the price of a gallon of gas WOULD NOT decrease, they'd simply take the bonus 18 cents/gallon or whatever it is, and stuff it in their fat pockets... and continue to jack up the price.
sukabi1
· 1 year ago
And to clear things up a bit, I'm not a Hillary supporter.
aquarius2
· 1 year ago
ericgoldman
Not trying to be argumentative but I ask you what has she done, as in trying effectively to change the energy policies, specifically the oil companies, since she has been a Senator? Her words sounded good in that 2005 statement she issued but it doesn't say what she has done since that time to make changes. She has over and over repeated that speeches and rhetoric are fine but that is all they are just words.
In that 2005 statement she sounds good and she smacks the Republicans for refusing to vote for the winter heating bill but what did she do about it? Has she, since 2005, introduced or initiated legislation that addresses energy issues for the long term? I really would like to know because I know that she has voted very favorably on many issues but how has she performed in this area? I would think that she or for that matter, anyone, should have been addressing these gas issues a year ago when the oil companies began their historic profits.
The other issue I have is that this program is going to cost real dollars, real money, and real setbacks in immediate road repairs to the nation as a whole. This is where I think she is pandering, ignoring the real problems to garner votes.
All Comments
http://freewayblogger.blogspot.com/2008/05/sout...
SF is next.
OPEC was increasing production in 2000, it is not now. Hilary's proposal includes a windfall profit tax on oil companies, which was not on the table in 2000.
In 2008, every political candidate, including Senators Clinton, Edwards and Obama, as well as Republican President Bush, came out with economic stimulus packages to put money in the hands of voters/ consumers. All such stimulus packages, including those from the Senators, were dismissed by economists as election year political gimmicks.
So, if you want to play the "gotcha" game, why was Senator Obama in favor of election year tax give-aways derided by economists before he was against them? Yes, it's a stupid question -- but it is the level at which this posting is playing.
Are you saying that all the candidates were in favor of this gas tax holiday, because this is the issue. And while we were not in a recession in 2000 I furnished, just a couple of days ago, senate hearings on energy and high gas prices in the year 2000. It was a major issue then and continues to be a major issue.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/07/midwestgas.htm
So my question to you is, after the major Senate hearings on energy in 2000, what has Clinton done to reverse the findings? What has she done to bring these oil companies in line? Why is it just now before the elections that she wants do something for the little guy?
Clearly, I am not saying that all of the candidates were in favor of this gas tax holiday. Clearly, high energy and gas prices have been an issue since 2000 and beyond.
As for the concern that Hilary Clinton has ignored the situation until now, a quick google yielded this statement. To my eye, this speaks to a remarkable consistency of message on the part of Senator Clinton.
October 27, 2005
Statement by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Record Oil Company Profits
Clinton Challenges Oil Companies to Reinvest Profits in Strategic Energy Fund
Washington, DC
Today, in response to earnings reports announced this week by several oil companies, Senator Clinton issued the following statement:
“Today’s news of record profits by our nation’s oil companies further proves the point that it is time for them to step up to the plate and use the huge benefits they are reaping to become part of our nation’s energy solution. Now is the perfect time for oil companies, flush with cash, to transform themselves into energy companies and invest in technologies that will increase America’s energy independence. My proposal to establish a Strategic Energy Fund will do just that while helping consumers cope with spiraling energy costs, promoting adoption of existing clean energy and conservation technologies; and stimulating research.
“As Americans struggle to pay for gas at the pumps and heat for their homes, the oil companies have a responsibility to reinvest their soaring profits into strategies that help consumers and lessen our oil dependence. I find it outrageous that as the Republicans in Congress vote down the heating assistance that we know low income families will need this winter, their oil company cronies are sitting on record profits. It’s time for a new national energy strategy if we are to truly change our energy future. We need to become the world’s major supplier of new energy technologies, not just the world’s major consumer of oil.”
(Labels: gas, hillary clinton, lies)
However, this logic creates a policy diconnect and begs another question; namely, why increase taxes on oil companies (windfall profits tax or whatever you want to call it) at all if the comaies will pass the increased tax cvosts on to the consumers? The problem is the oil companies, with the help of government inaction on the alterative fules front over time, have the consumers by the balls. The government and oil companies just work behid closed doors to determine who gets the "profits" and who gets the "taxes".
I guess the latter.
So when Clinton says she wants to suspend the gas tax, she is saying she wants to give the oil companies a tax break. She HOPES the oil companies will pass the savings on to customers. No chance of that since supply is inelastic and demand is high.
---
of course he did... he knew that there was no indication that a 'tax-free gas holiday' would be passed on to the consumers.
the oil companies would love it though... just imagine, speculation pushes a barrel of oil to $140. $$$$
See also Hillary Clinton in 2000 strongly supporting the gas tax in a debate with Rick Lazio:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=...
http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Transp...
I am not surprised you are confused. A lot of Hillary Clinton supporters are confused, and that is what Clinton is counting on. Here's the explanation of the tax from the CRS:
Again, Clinton's hope is that when the oil companies dont have to pay the tax, they will pass the savings on to the customer. As Bill Clinton pointed out in 2000, and as all economists now say, they do not believe that is likely to happen. The oil companies will simply pocket the difference.
oil companies PASS the tax on to the consumers, which was my point, and
EVEN IF there was a temporary suspension of the tax for the summer the
price of a gallon of gas WOULD NOT decrease, they'd simply take the
bonus 18 cents/gallon or whatever it is, and stuff it in their fat
pockets... and continue to jack up the price.
Not trying to be argumentative but I ask you what has she done, as in trying effectively to change the energy policies, specifically the oil companies, since she has been a Senator? Her words sounded good in that 2005 statement she issued but it doesn't say what she has done since that time to make changes. She has over and over repeated that speeches and rhetoric are fine but that is all they are just words.
In that 2005 statement she sounds good and she smacks the Republicans for refusing to vote for the winter heating bill but what did she do about it? Has she, since 2005, introduced or initiated legislation that addresses energy issues for the long term? I really would like to know because I know that she has voted very favorably on many issues but how has she performed in this area? I would think that she or for that matter, anyone, should have been addressing these gas issues a year ago when the oil companies began their historic profits.
The other issue I have is that this program is going to cost real dollars, real money, and real setbacks in immediate road repairs to the nation as a whole. This is where I think she is pandering, ignoring the real problems to garner votes.