I will be linking to FactCheck.org as I am notified by e-mail, with a brief summary of each article's content. Feel free to add relevant comment of add similar items, but please keep the main thrust a desire for the truth, and not a political rant. The thread is about the facts claimed by candidates and parties. If we stick to that for the most part, we all benefit.
McCain's $5,000 Promise His new ad only tells half the story of what his health proposal could mean for U.S. workers.
DNC vs. McCain Two Democratic Party TV ads hit McCain on Iraq and the economy. We supply context and corrections.
While I will give you the bottom line here, I strongly urge everyone who has an opinion on gas prices and Arctic drilling to read the entire article from FactCheck.
The Bottom Line:
McCain's solution solves nothing, but costs the government money. (That's us, folks, or out children, and their children, and their...)
Clinton's solution solves nothing, but costs the government money. (That's us, folks, or out children, and their children, and their...)
bush's solution (to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR), solves nothing, and won't even come into play for about 7-12 years, even if started today.
bush's solution (to increase US refinery capabilities), just isn't really very profitable for the oil companies, when all the costs are considered. (The first company to attempt to build the first new refinery in the country since 1976 waited over 10 years and still hadn't had investors and hasn't begun construction.) If the oil companies can make more money in other areas of the business, why should they make less ramping up refineries? Does anyone think they'd do it out of the goodness of their (alleged) hearts?.
Sources for FactCheck's article:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. "McCain's Gas Tax Holiday Would Devastate Highway and Transit Programs While Saving Motorists an Average of $28." 15 April 2008. Transportation.org. 30 April 2008.
American Society of Civil Engineers. "'Gas Tax Holiday' No Vacation for Economy, Consumers or the Environment." 15 April 2008. Denver Business Journal. 30 April 2008.
Americans for Transportation Mobility. "ATM Statement on Sen. John McCain's 'Gas Tax Holiday'." 15 April 2008. PRNewswire.com. 30 April 2008.
Bamberger, Robert and Pirog, Robert, "The Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Affects on Gasoline Prices of Selected Fill Policies," Congressional Research Service. 27 Sept 2004.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics. "Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption and Travel." 2007. U.S. Department of Transportation: Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 1 May 2008.
Burman, Len. "McCain's Gas-Tax Plan is On Empty." 18 April 2008. The Tax Policy Center. 30 April 2008.
Energy Information Administration. "Basic Petroleum Statistics." July 2007. U.S. Department of Energy. 30 April 2008.
Energy Information Administration. "U.S. Refineries Operable Capacity." July 2007. U.S. Department of Energy. 30 April 2008.
Hillary Clinton. "North Carolina: Hillary Clinton's Plan to Address Soaring Prices at the Pump." 28 April 2008. HillaryClinton.com. 30 April 2008.
Murray, Mark. "The Downside to Suspending the Gas Tax." 15 April 2008. MSNBC. 30 April 2008.
Power, Stephen. "McCain's Gas-Tax Plan May Be a Clunker." 15 April 2008. Washington Wire: The Wall Street Journal. 1 May 2008.
"Press Conference by the President," White House. 29 April 2008.
Taylor, Jerry. "Attention Sen. McCain: Moderation in the Pursuit of Tax and Spending Cuts is No Virtue." 18 April 2008. Cato @ Liberty. 30 April 2008.
Taylor, Jerry and Peter Van Doren. "Don't Increase Federal Gasoline Taxes—Abolish Them." 7 August 2007. Policy Analysis. 30 April 2008.
Posts: 16230 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Unsurprising, but this week's Economist has the same conclusion about the candidates' proposals. The only way the price could be reduced effectively would be to take off the tax (at great cost elsewhere):" The nettlesome fact at the heart of the matter is that expensive [gas] petrol is not the problem.Historically cheap petrol is:it has encouraged what even George Bush has called an American addiction to oil.Until that addiction is cured, expect more unrealistic and inconsistent promises from every stripe of politician"
Putting the tax up to European levels ( about 65 per cent of the pump price) would help a lot but that doesn't seem a likely proposal. If Americans moan about $4 and 18.4 cents federal tax now....
From what I understand, the first step in beating an addiction is admitting there is a problem. I suppose Americans have done that, but many totally believe the problem is with the oil companies, the government, and automobile manufacturers.
Few look at their lifestyles and try to figure out ways to cut down on driving. We haven't really looked at other processes that use oil for manufacturing goods either.
Instead of pushing for a repeal of federal gasoline taxes this summer, why isn't there a campaign to cut back on summer driving?
Posts: 1194 | Location: A danger to this country and the free world | Registered: 03-18-04
Originally posted by Rakuchild: why isn't there a campaign to cut back on summer driving?
How far do people drive ? There's a vague image here of some Americans driving thousands of miles across their own country.Do they stop and take in, 'explore', places on the way, so the journey is itself part of the holiday, or do they drive straight from home to destination as quickly as possible?
If it's straight A to B why not use airlines (and ,if a car is really needed, rent at the destination) ? Is this not convenient or is it a question of cost?
If it's straight A to B why not use airlines (and ,if a car is really needed, rent at the destination) ? Is this not convenient or is it a question of cost?
It costs a lot of money to fly, and to rent a car at the other end, Fred. For a family, that's a huge cost. Besides, many of the places people go to on vacation don't have an airport within hundreds of miles of them. Most people here rent or own cottages for the summer. They are in the north of the province in generally beautiful, but inaccessible places. Depending on where we go, it can take as many as 6 hours to drive to the cottage. Sure, we stop and take in the sites along the way, but the main objective is to get to the destination we are paying to stay at. Even if it was possible to fly to these places, that limits the amount of things you can take with you. I think that some people outside North America, find it difficult to appreciate just how huge the place is. I certainly did, until I moved here.
DG, I was answering a question, as I thought that was the purpose of this site. However, do feel free to delete my post. It really doesn't matter to me in the least.
Originally posted by dg: DG, I was answering a question, as I thought that was the purpose of this site. However, do feel free to delete my post. It really doesn't matter to me in the least.
Don't you worry, dg. You and I can elope to another thread,all of our own, so there !
Originally posted by dg: DG, I was answering a question, as I thought that was the purpose of this site. However, do feel free to delete my post. It really doesn't matter to me in the least.
Don't you worry, dg. You and I can elope to another thread,all of our own, so there !
Originally posted by dg: DG, I was answering a question, as I thought that was the purpose of this site. However, do feel free to delete my post. It really doesn't matter to me in the least.
Don't you worry, dg. You and I can elope to another thread,all of our own, so there !
That's the best offer I've had all week, Fred.
dg, meet me in an hour, under the clock Current Events at Waterloo Station American vacation driving.
Okay, sorry to have sent folks in another direction, but I noticed the article left out Obama's position that the average driver would probably only save about $30 over the summer.
Do they figure that makes too much sense to investigate?
Until I read the article though, I didn't even realize W had a "plan."
Posts: 1194 | Location: A danger to this country and the free world | Registered: 03-18-04
* Clinton's ad claims motorists would save $8 billion during her summer "holiday," not mentioning that no economists agree with her. She herself didn't name one when asked in a weekend tv interview.
* Obama's ad accuses Clinton of "pandering" to voters, then ticks through the elements of his plan -- leaving aside the fact that Clinton's plan includes each of those elements as well.
* Obama's $1,000 tax credit for families is made to sound as though it was designed to offset rising gas prices. It actually dates back to last fall, when he proposed it as part of his tax plan.
Posts: 16230 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
A mailer sent from Clinton's campaign to the homes of selected Indiana voters just before the Democratic primary goes after Obama for allegedly shifting his position on guns to suit his audience. The mailer's not outright wrong in any of its statements. But the facts muddy the picture.
* Obama's state Senate campaign in 1996 did say in a questionnaire that Obama favored banning handguns. But Obama says he personally didn't answer the question, and that he's never felt that way.
* Obama has said he supports the Second Amendment as an individual right to bear arms. But he's also said he believes that government can regulate that right.
* Obama did say small-town Americans could be "bitter," and that they "cling to guns" and religion and other traditions. He actually said that those feelings were tied to being disappointed by politicians' empty economic promises.
Posts: 16230 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
* Obama did say small-town Americans could be "bitter," and that they "cling to guns" and religion and other traditions. He actually said that those feelings were tied to being disappointed by politicians' empty economic promises.
When I first heard this statement, I thought, "Wow, did he grow up in my hometown?" The only way I'd amend it would be to say "guns AND religion."
The statement Obama made on April 25, makes sense where he used the words "common-sense regulations and firearm ownership [rules]. I believe that's what most people are really asking for.
Posts: 1194 | Location: A danger to this country and the free world | Registered: 03-18-04
Summary McCain’s big promise is that he can balance the budget while extending Bush’s tax cuts and adding a few of his own. He likes to leave the impression that this can be done painlessly, for example, by eliminating "wasteful" spending in the form of “earmarks” that lawmakers like to tuck into spending bills to finance home-state projects. We found that not only is this theory full of holes, it's not even McCain's actual plan. In this story we examine the spending-cut side of McCain's budget program. In Part II, we'll look at what McCain has said about taxes. - FactCheck.org
Posts: 16230 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
In McCain's world, everyone gets a pony: tax cuts for the middle class, higher revenue to continue all the popular government programs and the elimination of all those earmarks that no one (except their very specific beneficiaries) really likes anyway.
Unfortunately, in the world of fiscal reality, it's not so easy to dole out such generous gifts. - FactCheck.org
The article also mentions this
Then there's the matter of whether capital gains tax cuts trigger revenue increases. We’ve addressed this distortion before, most recently when ABC News moderator Charles Gibson made a similar claim during a Democratic debate. Like Gibson, McCain is partly right. Revenues do tend to increase immediately following a cut in the capital gains tax rate. Because capital gains (or earnings on gains in stocks or real estate) are taxed only when the asset is sold, many investors will hold on to their assets until lower tax rates take effect, then rush to the "sell" window. But the spike in income to the federal government is temporary. A 2002 Congressional Budget Office study found that the effect wears off after a year or two. The report concluded that cuts to the capital gains tax rate "may not be enough to produce additional receipts over a long period" but "may do so over a few years."
Posts: 16230 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
