Yes, we can.

[innerSpaceman]

Because he's a tool. He's a maroon. I think it's the stupidest thing he's done in the whole campaign.

BUT, he's human. And this is typical. Now that he's getting so close to the nomination and the presidency he can taste it, he's starting to make mistakes. The closer to the presidency he gets, the more of an idiot he will become.

[scaeagles]

Here's yet another thing that scares me about Obama. He wants a windfall profits tax on oil companies. This is unsound economics and is another example of a politician who does not know economics proposing economic ideas because they are politically advantageous.

What he wants to do:

Obama proposes oil companies be taxed on windfall profits from oil sold at or above 80 dollars a barrel, and the revenue be used to help relieve the burden of rising prices on working people, according to his campaign.

Here's a column chastizing republicans for a similarly stupid proposal.

The feel good politically expedient thing to say (and something I believe he'd do as well) only makes the problem worse.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I've rarely seen so much ado about nothing.

It is rare, but we do agree once in while!

Originally Posted by scaeagles

If this is no big deal, however, why did Obama feel the need to suddenly "see the light" when only a day or two before he had said he could not abandon Wright?

I've stayed out of this discussion thus far, but I thought that Obama spoke up because Wright came out with even more inflammatory rhetoric. I may very well be mistaken as I have not been keeping up on things lately.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Here's yet another thing that scares me about Obama. He wants a windfall profits tax on oil companies. This is unsound economics and is another example of a politician who does not know economics proposing economic ideas because they are politically advantageous.

What he wants to do:

The feel good politically expedient thing to say (and something I believe he'd do as well) only makes the problem worse.

Who is going to be taxed? Exxon, et. al. don't sell barrels of oil, they buy them. Does Obama plan on taxing the Saudi's? Good luck with THAT! There are a few, very small domestic oil sellers that might impacted by this, but since they really can't make much money unless oil sells in this range, then yeah, it is stupid election time politicking.

[Not Afraid]

I wonder what would be said about my friendships here if I were to run for office?

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

I wonder what would be said about my friendships here if I were to run for office?

At first, I thought that you would be laughed out of the race. Then I realized you would be laughed into office.

[Strangler Lewis]

I agree that there's a lot of bad behavior all around and that a tax-as such-on the oil companies is not the best way to target it. Some suggestions:

* If Obama truly feels that the oil companies' profits do not accurately reflect supply and demand, market conditions, etc., he should have the stones to launch a big old fashioned criminal price fixing investigation.

* I have limited sympathy for most people affected by rising gas prices since many of them are driving fuel-inefficient, anti-social vehicles. Just as inner city police departments have had some success paying gangbangers $50 to turn in their guns, the government could help people help themselves by insisting that everyone turn in their SUVs and oversized pickups in for a new hybrid. (Or a new hybrid plus a gun, a Faces of Death video, etc. to keep testosterone levels up.)

* Anyone who wanted to keep their SUV or pickup truck would have to get a special permit justifying the need. It would cost $1,000 just to have the permit considered. E.g., an SUV would not be justified by commuter safety concerns. An oversized pickup would not be justified by the need to haul stuff to work on your house twice a year.

* There would be additional federal funding for school districts to run buses.

* Etc.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

I've stayed out of this discussion thus far, but I thought that Obama spoke up because Wright came out with even more inflammatory rhetoric. I may very well be mistaken as I have not been keeping up on things lately.

But Wright didn't say anything he hasn't been saying for the last 20 odd years. The only differenece that I can see is this time Obama and his apologists couldn't say Wright was being taken out of context

[scaeagles]

Back to the Obama and the oil company issue. Clinton and McCain are calling for a gas tax suspension. Obama doesn't like the idea....

Hillary Rodham Clinton called for a vote Friday in the Democratic-controlled Congress on a summertime suspension of the federal gasoline tax, a plan that Barack Obama dismissed as a political stunt that would cost thousands of construction jobs.

"It's a Shell game. Literally," Obama said to laughter from his campaign audience, adding it would mean little for hard-pressed consumers.

When the gas taxes or about 3 times what the oil companies make on a gallon of gas, I am amused that he wants a windfall profits tax when oil companies make about 8-9 cents/gallon, and the government takes about three times that. If taking away that tax means little or nothing to the average consumer, what does the wind fall profits tax mean to the average consumer?

[innerSpaceman]

Well he pretty much outted the pander of the gas tax suspension proposal this morning on national tv. Great interview on Meet the Press.

[Alex]

Yes, it was a very good interview though I think he muffed the Iran/Israel question a bit.

On the tax holiday question I think he needs to modify that answer a bit and give it great prominence. So far I had mostly seen him trying to explain the economics of why a tax holiday isn't really of any short term value and has short term negatives. Instead he should essentially say, "experience is an issue that keeps coming up and experience has taught me the answer to this question. Back when gasoline was a shocking $2 a gallon we had this same idea in Illinois. And the economists said it wouldn't work and we politicians gathered together and decided that it would and passed a holiday on the Illinois gas taxes. And you know what? The economists were right, the price of gas just rose to cover the tax holiday BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT MARKETS DO and we simply transferred that money from the state highway coffers to the retail gas station owners. That is why I don't support a federal tax holiday. It is an idea born out of good intent but it won't work, it hasn't worked in the past, and the damages can be huge."

(Though, obviously, it would have to be shorter.)