This from a man who admits he knows nothing about economics.

Four more years of Bu**sh**!

Maybe if we stopped focusing on lowering taxes and started to focus on raising IQ's we'd do something worthwhile.

Does that mean this in this election our vote will be sought for saving pennies on a dollar?

Is the theme picture supposed to be McCain hitting one out of the park??

Lol, omg.

Does he propose how to pay for this tax break?

Did you read the article?

No?

Here's what you missed:

If the federal gas tax is "vacationed" it will save every person about 18.4 cents per gallon. That means, if I were to put 15 gallons in the tank, I'll save $2.76 for the fill-up.

Now, the proposal suggests that the vacation lasts from Memorial Day to Labor Day... approx. 94 days, or 13 weeks. For me (provided I fill up the same 15 gallons, once per week) I will save $35.88. Not necessarily a lot of money... but nothing I'm looking forward to giving away at the moment.

But what about the people who are driving somewhere far on vacation? What about the people with older cars and poor gas millage? What about the people who have to drive really far to get to work? What about the truckers, who would save 24.4 per gallon for diesel?

All these numbers add up, and will give people (especially people who need to make every penny count) a little more freedom. And that little bit more will allow them to spend money elsewhere... and that could be a good thing for everyone.


Similar to the "economic stimulus package," this is a "short-term / feel good" type of move. But what's wrong with that? The idea is people will always spend a certain amount of their money... and holding back on some taxes here, doesn't mean they'll (intelligently) start saving it, they'll just spend it somewhere else. The Government will wind up eventually getting that money... but so will another business... and with any luck, a business that really needs it.


The merits of this idea (as well as the other ideas listed in the article... this is just one of the proposals) can be debated. However, more "BOOOOOSH" hooting and hollering isn't really much of an argument.

What's wrong with it is that it doesn't work. People need to buy bread. They aren't going to put their kids through college on $35.

Further, that tax money goes somewhere, so what are we doing, borrowing more from the Chinese?

How about this. Instead of giving us a stupid (and I mean completely ignorant) tax break on gas, let us suffer the greed (remember SUV's?) of our oil consumption but repeal the tax breaks for the oil companies and DON'T LET THEM CHARGE CONSUMERS FOR IT. Let it come out of their pockets, maybe their CEO's can give back some of their nice bonuses for a few years. Then use that money to invest in ALTERNATIVES to oil. You know, something sensible, long term. This will also create JOBS. This will stimulate the economy because if someone can really make a decent car that runs on an efficient alternative that doesn't in turn hurt the environment or economy in another way and wow, maybe we'll pioneer something that we can manufacture and sell to the rest of the planet. OMG!!!

How many times do we have to repeat the same mistake (short-term-feel-good-do-nothing-but-fool-a-few-people schemes) expecting different results?

For the US government to step in and tell Oil Companies what to charge would basically be throwing away all of the principles of Capitalism that your country is built on.

You want the Reds to win?

It does help save money though. It stimulates the economy, because when people see (for example) 2.89 as opposed to 3.09, they are more likely to drive, and actually spend MORE money. Sure, it's not much, but it'll help.

We aren't borrowing it from anyone. It's just money the federal government won't get. So they just can't spend it. I dont see the problem..

The lot of you complain that Bush and McCain want to give tax cuts to the rich. (Not addressing you specifically, Dolly). But you fail to realize that when the rich get tax cuts, it gives them extra money to hire more people, and it DOES create more jobs. Plus, these tax cuts "for the rich" go to the poor, too.

It we really wanna talk about suppressing the economy, why don't we mention Obama's $1 TRILLION spending increase over 4 years? That'll sure stifle the economy to where we can't afford to go out and do something.

P.S. Why does everyone hate CEO's? It's not like they're trying to keep everyone poor. They're getting paid for doing a job.

If you truly believe that the government won't be pulling money from somewhere else to make up for the taxes they are just "not getting" from gas, then you are one of the most incredibly naiive people I have ever encountered.

Well if we had a congress that didn't spend money we didn't have we'd be fine.

But tax breaks or no tax breaks, congress will be borrowing money we don't have. I don't see the point in demonizing a tax cut in this regards.

Congress? This Horses Ass of a President has spent TRILLIONS on an illegal war and trillions is what we can account for today, no telling what the ultimate cost will be.

No President has ever done what Howdy Doody has done and completely ignored what ramifications it's having. It's his war at any cost.

It's slight of hand politics. I assume that you must be somewhere in the back of the auditorium because from where I'm sitting the trap door is pretty clear. Tax break the gas, raise the taxes on something else. Keep an eye out for it, see what increases to compensate.

They already have, now I want the people to win, you know, like in the constitution.

Your good buddy Dubya is the prime spender of money we don't have.

No question congress is no slouch when it comes to spending our taxes but the Iraq war is not even on the books yet except as loans from China.
You seem incredibly uninformed if you think we're not borrowing money internationally. These are rather well known facts.

If you check on the economics of our current debt problem, not even factoring in the war debt, the tax cuts were the number one cause.

Please don't give us the Reagan trickle down crap.

We have given tax breaks to companies and CEOs whose only consideration is their bottom line. They close factories here and open them in places like Mexico or wherever they can pay low wages. They lay off employees then complain that people aren't spending and their profits are down. They hire illegals so they can pay them off the books or minimum wages.

You seem to be doing a swift boat job on Obama all by yourself. You keep spouting all these awful things about Obama that only you seem to be privy to. the man isn't even nominated yet and you have him destroying our economy.

Do you make up all this stuff as you go along?

Give us a break will you.

President Bush can't spend a DIME without congressional approval.

If you want to stop the war, have congress stop voting to continue spending.

McCain, Hillary, AND Obama continue to vote for spending on the war. If you're tired of it being spent write your representative! (Not you specifically, though).

Ok, please stop associating me with Dubya. I think W. is an AWFUL President.

Tax cuts don't get borrowed. Of course I know money is being borrowed from China, where do you think our stimulus package came from?

Our current debt problem is spending more money than we have and letting the FED print our money. It has nothing to do with tax cuts. Our debt has increased EVERY year since FDR.

Well when it's cheaper for them to make stuff in Mexico, more power to them. It saves US money, because the lower cost of production is passed onto the consumer.

When you tax the rich nearly half their money, they don't have as much money to hire others. When you cut their taxes, they have more money to make hires. IF we continue to tax them, we LOSE more jobs.

Fine I'll stop posting Obama stuff. But spending $1 Trillion dollars more than we already are over four years is certainly not going to help our economy.

Of course I read the article how else would I know it's a stupid idea?

Bush has, as is obvious to most people, been a disaster to the US and it's economy. No need to go into all those facts again here. It's a no brainer.

Mr McCain, who has flip flopped with the best of them, has now decided that he has to pay homage to the Republican right and become at least a mini-Bush. It seems to be working with folks who just didn't learn much from our current presidential disaster.

Most thinking people will see this for what is, a cheap bit of pandering. Unfortunately it seems that it will work with some people. Ignore the massive economic problem facing this nation, debt that our grandchildren will still be paying and a hugely expensive war that may cost 3 trillion dollars when it's finally totalled up. Instead this presidential candidate offers up an idea to shave off some tax money so some folks will save $35.

It's absolutely economically lame. It's just as bad as the ill conceived "stimulus" package that most people say they won't likely spend as hoped for. This brilliant administration spent an additional 32 million dollars to send out letters to tell people the check was in the mail. Do they think we don't read?

I'd love to know where all you people who think tax cuts are the cure all for everything believe the money that's needed to run the Government and fight the wars will come from. There is no free lunch as we all know too well.

Since You weren't responding to me, I only want to touch on this point.

Tax cuts are NOT the cure all for everything. Tax cuts are not the cure all for the economy.

For the economy to jump back up, we need to A) cut taxes, B) stop overspending, and C) stop printing money at will.

However, the BEST things we could do for our government is to eliminate the income tax. Then we would need to require congress to balance the budget, and then we would need to eliminate the Federal Reserve and start printing our own money.

A BIG thing we could do to save money would be to end the war. But of course, with everyone voting to continue spending, nothing's going to happen.

Where are you getting this information?

The money to replace tax cuts does get borrowed. Unless the Gov't cuts spending to equalize it. When has that happened recently. The conservatives keep wanting more cuts while we keep spending more

Where's the data that the Gov't is printing billions of dollars?

It's OK for companies who got tax breaks with the "hope" they will hire more people to outsource their work to other countries and fire their workers here? Huh?

The rich are hardly hurting. I'm not in favor of taxing them unfairly but stupid harmful tax breaks for them while the middle class keeps getting reamed is bad policy

Um, I think you forgot that Bill Clinton left office with a surplus and not an increased national debt as you mis-stated.

I don't give a hoot if you keep posting Obama stuff, it's not for me to say. If I were to make a request to you I'd ask you to post actual facts about him and the other candidates not half-truths and the kind of stuff that gets sent around in emails.

If we don't approach this election with some honesty and minimize the character assainations we'll likely end up with the same kind of garbage we have now.

And you're right about Bush, I will not associate him with you again.

Well that's not my problem, or McCain's problem. That's congress' problem. If they borrow money from China to pay for all their programs, that's their fault.

Do you need data? it's a commonly known fact. Where did you get the dollar bills you have in your wallet? The FED

It's not as if these tax cuts are just for the rich. They're for the middle class too.

And it's not that we're going to trust them to hire new workers, we just know that if we tax them too much they'll outsource.

That is an absolute lie. Clinton stole money from social security to give us a national TRADE surplus. Our national debt still increased. Link

With the exception of the one "obama lies" post, everything else has been unbiased and proven.

All three of the remaining candidates suck, we're getting an awful President out of any of them.

And thanks for not associating me with Bush anymore :)

Though not a long term solution to the problem a tax break on gas is something that is "doable" without prolonged debate and keeps the futures traders who are solely responsible for driving up prices out of the equation.

From an economic standpoint oil companies struggled for years ( until a few years ago gas was $1.25) with huge capital expenditures.

As OPEC has repeated stated, there is no shortage and increasing production will not drive down prices.

The futures market traders at Goldman Sachs et al now control pricing. Futures which were originally created to stablize price and supply are being artifically manipultated. The blame is at their feet.

As for soaring food prices the price of gas has only contibuted slightly to pricing. Again commodities like wheat, soybeans, corn, etc are all commodities traded on the futures market.

Wall Streets avarice and greed are the cause of almost all finacial suffering.

That said, yes we need to getout of this war and yes we need to encourage alternative energy sources.

Ah, you keep doing it...you are an incredible source on non facts and non truths. I think you're simply uninformed. Sorry to be so demeaning sounding but you persist in claiming stuiff that simply isn't true and could be checked with very little effort...before you post them.

Clinton did not steal money from Social Security, in fact no one ever has not even Bush. The SS funds are not put in the general fund and never have been. However just about every modern administration has legally borrowed the excess from SS.

The tax cuts were primarily for the rich, and were the biggest contributor to our deficit that can be easily checked too

A clip from this article:



The Bush tax cuts have contributed to revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950, and have been a major contributor to the dramatic shift from large projected budget surpluses to projected deficits as far as the eye can see.
The tax cuts have conferred the most benefits, by far, on the highest-income households — those least in need of additional resources — at a time when income already is exceptionally concentrated at the top of the income spectrum.
The design of these tax cuts was ill-conceived, resulting in significantly less economic stimulus than could have been accomplished for the same budgetary cost. In part because the tax cuts were not as effective as alternative measures would have been, job creation during this recovery has been notably worse than in any other recovery since the end of World War II.

Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.