Republican Presidential Candidate 2012 - Pt 2

[walto]

Again, a "badk-breaking" tax wasn't suggested by anybody but you. If I'm wrong, I suggest you post a quote. And, as to "snotty" I'd say your "You obviously don't care about this pressing issue" baloney takes the cake.

[Uli]

Whenever the commentators refer to Santorums voter base they mention the Evangelicals/Born Agains. I think this race is completely unpredictable. How does one predict how many voter will be born again between now and the convention? I think it's all in the hands of the Lord now.

And how can you guys have nasty arguments about a punitive gas tax when Republicans want the president to lower the gas price to 2.50?

[Bourne]

http://speakeasy.jazzcorner.com/spea...&postcount=800

Try reading more than selected posts before commenting on a subject please.

[walto]

OK, Doc. Dave did indeed suggest a gas tax that could be described as back-breaking. I note in my defense, however, that neither crawjo nor I did.

Let me ask you this, if you and a few of your devoutly awesome friends started unilaterally paying $8 per gallon, do you think this would help anything? Now suppose, that the additional money you guys spend on gas will be used for e-car research (or community basketball centers or anti-cancer drugs or whatever you choose.) Have you improved the world by going it alone?

[crawjo]

For the first time, I'm beginning to doubt that Romney will win the Repub. nomination. A brokered convention brings the real possibility of somebody new, which could be the best thing for the GOP.

I think he's still the overwhelming favorite, simply because a path to a majority of delegates is more plausible for him than it is for Santorum. Santorum's best chance now is to somehow, someway, convince Gingrich to get out of the race. Promise him free blowjobs for a lifetime or something. The only way to stop Romney is to throw all the anti-Romney vote to one candidate, instead of splitting between two different candidates. If Gingrich stays in the race, then I think that Romney will fall short of the majority of delegates needed but will come close enough that no other dark horse candidate will be able to plausibly come up with an argument for why they should be the nominee over Romney.

What Santorum needs to do now is win Illinois. That won't be easy but it's not outside of the realm of possibility. Imagine what the narrative would be today if Santorum had found a way to hold on in Michigan and Ohio. He needs to win some more states in the Midwest.

[Bourne]

OK, Doc. Dave did indeed suggest a gas tax that could be described as back-breaking. I note in my defense, however, that neither crawjo nor I did.

Let me ask you this, if you and a few of your devoutly awesome friends started unilaterally paying $8 per gallon, do you think this would help anything? Now suppose, that the additional money you guys spend on gas will be used for e-car research (or community basketball centers or anti-cancer drugs or whatever you choose.) Have you improved the world by going it alone?

I am not sure why you chose to be so rude about the issue but I will answer your question. This will also help answer some of the questions crawjo asked.

There is a big difference between "going it alone" concerning the environment and our foreign wars. One cannot do anything that effects the way our civilian leaders use our military. Options such as voting them out, calling/writing your Congressman, and organization of protests. None of these have proved fruitful.

But one can recycle, drive more fuel efficient automobiles, buy more energy efficient appliances, walk/bicycle instead of drive if the option exists, consume less, and so on. These are very effective and people have moved in this direction in large numbers without government mandate. However, they did put financial incentives in place such as tax credits for energy efficiency.

[Jazzooo]

"I think this race is completely unpredictable. How does one predict how many voter will be born again between now and the convention? I think it's all in the hands of the Lord now."

Best laugh of the day so far, thanks.

[GoodSpeak]

"I think this race is completely unpredictable. How does one predict how many voter will be born again between now and the convention? I think it's all in the hands of the Lord now."

Best laugh of the day so far, thanks.

I think it's pretty pathetic, TBH.

Sanatorium is openly trying to use religious people to get votes. I mean, he isn't even bothering to disguise it anymore. At least the radical right "christians" make an attempt to be cagey about it.


Sad.

[walto]

I am not sure why you chose to be so rude about the issue but I will answer your question. This will also help answer some of the questions crawjo asked.

There is a big difference between "going it alone" concerning the environment and our foreign wars. One cannot do anything that effects the way our civilian leaders use our military. Options such as voting them out, calling/writing your Congressman, and organization of protests. None of these have proved fruitful.

But one can recycle, drive more fuel efficient automobiles, buy more energy efficient appliances, walk/bicycle instead of drive if the option exists, consume less, and so on. These are very effective and people have moved in this direction in large numbers without government mandate. However, they did put financial incentives in place such as tax credits for energy efficiency.

Yer preachin to the choir, boy. Craw has already mentioned his car. I now take 4 buses and 2 trains every work day, and have commuted via the T for over 30 years.

The result of our good works?--we're still the most wasteful nation in the world. Could be you need a better plan, one that goes beyond altruism.

[patricia]

I think it's pretty pathetic, TBH.

Sanatorium is openly trying to use religious people to get votes. I mean, he isn't even bothering to disguise it anymore. At least the radical right "christians" make an attempt to be cagey about it.


Sad.

If Santorum gets the nomination and, God forbid, is actually elected in November, if he is serious about eliminating the line between church and state, IMO, the whole direction of the country will be not unlike Afghanistan under the Taliban.
Back when Kennedy was running, he felt it necessary to assure the voters that his being Catholic was totally irrelevant to his possible election as President, that he would not take direction from the Pope in Rome.
Santorum has not felt it necessary to make that assurance.
Scary. The Pope would doubtless be surprised that he might be instrumental in advising Santorum on matters of U.S. policy.

[GoodSpeak]

If Santorum gets the nomination and, God forbid, is actually elected in November, if he is serious about eliminating the line between church and state, IMO, the whole direction of the country will be not unlike Afghanistan under the Taliban.
Back when Kennedy was running, he felt it necessary to assure the voters that his being Catholic was totally irrelevant to his possible election as President, that he would not take direction from the Pope in Rome.
Santorum has not felt it necessary to make that assurance.
Scary. The Pope would doubtless be surprised that he might be instrumental in advising Santorum on matters of U.S. policy.

Truer words were never spoken, Patricia.

That guy is as close to a Rev. Jim Jones as it gets, politcally.


Way scary.

[rollhead]

I would rather have the religious fanatics running things than the bankers.

[clinthopson]

Anyone else see "Game Change?"


I am counting on the Repubs to fuck up again.

Mores the better for Obama.

[walto]

I would rather have the religious fanatics running things than the bankers.

Thing is, we could be blessed with both.

[patricia]

Thing is, we could be blessed with both.

Indeed.

[crawjo]

I would rather have the religious fanatics running things than the bankers.

Yeah, not sure why the religious fanatics would take on the bankers.

[baksheesh]

Yeah, not sure why the religious fanatics would take on the bankers.

Yes, quite...

[crawjo]

I am not sure why you chose to be so rude about the issue but I will answer your question. This will also help answer some of the questions crawjo asked.

There is a big difference between "going it alone" concerning the environment and our foreign wars. One cannot do anything that effects the way our civilian leaders use our military. Options such as voting them out, calling/writing your Congressman, and organization of protests. None of these have proved fruitful.

But one can recycle, drive more fuel efficient automobiles, buy more energy efficient appliances, walk/bicycle instead of drive if the option exists, consume less, and so on. These are very effective and people have moved in this direction in large numbers without government mandate. However, they did put financial incentives in place such as tax credits for energy efficiency.

I already do the things you mention. I drive an extremely efficient car. I recycle...I walk when I can. But the reality is that I live in an area where I have to drive 20 minutes to get to work, have to drop off my 2-year-old at day care and my eight-year-old at school. There's no way, with the present public transportation infrastructure, for me to do all those things each day without having my own car. It's just not possible.

But more broadly, what I believe is that we are going to reach a point of reckoning with our energy consumption in the not too distant future. The purpose of a gas tax, which I would implement in better economic times and VERY gradually, would be to speed up the incentives for people to become more efficient and for government or private enterprise to start offering services that reflect the new reality. I most certainly would not be in favor of a $3 tax imposed tomorrow, or even next year. I would be in favor of a smaller tax introduced maybe sometime in late 2013/early 2014, gradually increasing as we go along. The size of the tax I can't say, because I haven't studied the issue fully enough to know what levels of taxation would optimize the results I'm looking for.

[Uli]

Thing is, we could be blessed with both.

That's the spirit, walto!

[walto]

Uli, aren't you worried that if Santorum continues to rally, there might be a brokered convention and we get somebody like Christie, who might actually win this thing?

[Uli]

Uli, aren't you worried that if Santorum continues to rally, there might be a brokered convention and we get somebody like Christie, who might actually win this thing?

Not really.As weird as it is I think Romney can not be counted out yet in the general election and I don't really know if a guy like Christie has a better chance.

[Vince Kargatis]

We've been talking about this "gas tax" for a while. Me, from ~3 years ago:

'Tax' is a dirty word, and in this case, I think inaccurate. "Taxes" are generally thought to be money taken by the government for government expenditures. A carbon penalty should be looked at like a penalty or fine, and ideally, the government should keep none of it - its most efficient implementation would be direct rebating back to the public. The rebating would have to be progressive, to avoid penalizing the poorest consumers of greenhouse emitters, but overall, it's pretty damn simple. (Handling side effects, like companies' escaping borders to avoid the penalty, can be worked at with time.)

I think more people would come around sooner if the rebate principle were emphasized.

My suggestion: institute a planned annually compounded penalty, on the order of 2-3% per year. Rebate progressively (based on the current tax code, hopefully so that the poorest are revenue neutral) as a tax credit. The penalty starts pretty gradually, but increases to a factor of 2 in 20ish years, and 3 in 40. (Basically, shoot for a penalty that makes it prohibitively expensive by the time it needs to be practically zero output.)

I don't think that the "bad economy" is a reason to hold off on starting such a program, myself. One borrows from the future either way: taking money, or leaving harm (in the effects of unconstrained polluting energy use) from future generations. I think it's probably safer to borrow money myself - in this case, starting the greenhouse penalties right now, and spending the money (as necessary) to make it revenue neutral for the poor (though, to be clear: not subsidizing energy purchases - just pure cash distributions).

[Bourne]

I already do the things you mention. I drive an extremely efficient car. I recycle...I walk when I can. But the reality is that I live in an area where I have to drive 20 minutes to get to work, have to drop off my 2-year-old at day care and my eight-year-old at school. There's no way, with the present public transportation infrastructure, for me to do all those things each day without having my own car. It's just not possible.

But more broadly, what I believe is that we are going to reach a point of reckoning with our energy consumption in the not too distant future. The purpose of a gas tax, which I would implement in better economic times and VERY gradually, would be to speed up the incentives for people to become more efficient and for government or private enterprise to start offering services that reflect the new reality. I most certainly would not be in favor of a $3 tax imposed tomorrow, or even next year. I would be in favor of a smaller tax introduced maybe sometime in late 2013/early 2014, gradually increasing as we go along. The size of the tax I can't say, because I haven't studied the issue fully enough to know what levels of taxation would optimize the results I'm looking for.

This is a thoughtful post. Seems we are on the same page.

[walto]

We've been talking about this "gas tax" for a while. Me, from ~3 years ago: Quote:

Originally Posted by Vince Kargatis
'Tax' is a dirty word, and in this case, I think inaccurate. "Taxes" are generally thought to be money taken by the government for government expenditures. A carbon penalty should be looked at like a penalty or fine, and ideally, the government should keep none of it - its most efficient implementation would be direct rebating back to the public. The rebating would have to be progressive, to avoid penalizing the poorest consumers of greenhouse emitters, but overall, it's pretty damn simple. (Handling side effects, like companies' escaping borders to avoid the penalty, can be worked at with time.)

I think more people would come around sooner if the rebate principle were emphasized.

My suggestion: institute a planned annually compounded penalty, on the order of 2-3% per year. Rebate progressively (based on the current tax code, hopefully so that the poorest are revenue neutral) as a tax credit. The penalty starts pretty gradually, but increases to a factor of 2 in 20ish years, and 3 in 40. (Basically, shoot for a penalty that makes it prohibitively expensive by the time it needs to be practically zero output.)

I don't think that the "bad economy" is a reason to hold off on starting such a program, myself. One borrows from the future either way: taking money, or leaving harm (in the effects of unconstrained polluting energy use) from future generations. I think it's probably safer to borrow money myself - in this case, starting the greenhouse penalties right now, and spending the money (as necessary) to make it revenue neutral for the poor (though, to be clear: not subsidizing energy purchases - just pure cash distributions).

Right on.

[LennyH]

I don't think it's advantageous or necessary to tax gas now or anytime gas prices are at the point where they are causing trouble. I just don't want to see gas get "cheap" again (I think we've seen the last of $2 gas, though, and I don't know that I have an idea right now of what "cheap" is).

I wonder if it would be reasonable/feasible/possible to put a floor on the price of gas so that tax would be in effect anytime gas drops below a certain amount. Now, we know that it's at least possible that the tax would never go into effect depending where this trigger point was set and, of course, even if an option like this were on the table there would be a strong push by some in congress to set the trigger point at like $1.98 or some other ridiculous point...but logistics like that are not pertinent to this hypothetical tax that would never be instituted in this country anyway. Thoughts like this are really just an exercise.

Maybe the idea of cheap gas really isn't a worry anymore. Prius sales were huge last month. If gas goes back down then there's reason to believe that SUV sales will spike again. Or, if gas prices stay right where they now are and people get comfortable with gas at this price maybe they go back to SUVs anyway!

Fuck it, we need a gas tax .

[ran]

In Ca. we have a Federal , State and Local sales tax. The local sales tax in some counties can be as high as 11.5%. I am especially sensative to this being that I'm in the transportation business. But if everyone were taxed equally across the board , I'd be all for it. And , yes it makes a huge difference in traffic patterns when the prices spike upwards. People find ways around it , use whatever public trans. that might be available , in L.A. that's sometimes very difficult. The City is so massive that chances are using a surface train , subway , bus and mini bus in one day is not out of the question.

[hornplayer]

just don't want to see gas get "cheap" again (I think we've seen the last of $2 gas, though, and I don't know that I have an idea right now of what "cheap" is).

When I was in France in December, we paid $5+ per QUART (well, liters, really) for gas. The folks in Europe haven't stopped driving, but they do, almost to a one, drive small, fuel-efficient cars. That seems to be something Americans don't even want to consider.

[GoodSpeak]

When I was in France in December, we paid $5+ per QUART (well, liters, really) for gas. The folks in Europe haven't stopped driving, but they do, almost to a one, drive small, fuel-efficient cars. That seems to be something Americans don't even want to consider.

More to the point: It is something the auto industry and oil companies don't want us to consider.

[steve(thelil)]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...l?ref=politics

I didn't really expect to ever post an article because I agreed with something Ann Coulter said, but here it is. In it she contends that since Palin hit the scene, the GOP has been a place where conservative con men and con women try to attract a fanatical base for their own personal totally selfish motives. I just hope she isn't doing the same thing. (I think she's being sincere here and not just positioning herself to star in a remake of Mr. Ed.)

[jesus marion joseph]

I think there's a seat at some table, somewhere, for virtually any aspirant to national office to make a soft landing after they either lose, give up or fail to run for any further terms in office, and I don't think that phenomenon is particular to Republicans.

I do agree with Coulter's observation that the GOP's agenda is *currently* being guided by charlatans and hacks, but I disagree that a Grover Norquist type solution is likely to change anything in a way of for the better. In fact, that's sort of how they got into this position to start with, isn't it? They just need better candidates; people who don't make John Kerry look like the model of consistency in political ideology would be good.