|
| Home RSS Directory F.A.Q Try Custom Feed Sonneries Portable |
Latest Flows from this sub-category: random selection from this sub-category: |
Sat, 07 Jun 2008 22:00:00 +0200 Fri, 06 Jun 2008 22:05:00 +0200 Recently, several newspapers have reported that John Edward's has no interest in being the Vice President on this year's Democratic ticket. This revelation puts further emphasis on the possibility of a joint ticket between Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton. Last night, further hints at the possibility of the "dream ticket" emerged when Senator Obama and Clinton met for a private one on one meeting last night, held at a friends house, where they conversed for roughly an hour before coming out in what was reported as high spirits. CNN also released a poll conducted shortly after Obama clenched the nomination, in which they found that 54% of registered Democrats would like to see Senator Clinton become the VP nominee. However, there also seemed to be a gender split, in which female Democrats were much more in favor of the "dream ticket" than were men. Despite the bitterness between the candidates over the past months, a joint-ticket would do wonders to help quickly unify the party, and despite some potential negative consequences, the potential of having the first black President and the first woman Vice Presidential, is a monumental feat for America which would come with resounding, uplifting social effects. To think that only 40 years ago, our country was being ripped apart by racial divides, that 90 years ago women were unable to vote, that our country was founded on the economics of slavery, and that now we are on the precipice of electing not just a black man and a woman to office, but affirming the possibility for true social change and the continuing aspiration for greatness, in a country that has forgotten what we stand for.
Thu, 05 Jun 2008 23:27:00 +0200 "'What are you, some kind of a nut?' Mr. Rumsfeld cut in, drawing laughter. 'You don’t believe in the Constitution?'" (NY Times)
Thu, 05 Jun 2008 20:41:00 +0200 Today, after increasing pressure from the Democratic party it seems that Hillary Clinton's campaign will come to an end, and that she will endorse Senator Obama in an effort to help unite the sharply divided party. Her official announcement will come this upcoming Saturday. Many of her strongest supporters are now attempting to lobby for Senator Clinton to become the Vice Presidential candidate on the ticket. Robert Johnson, founder of BET, has written a letter urging the Congressional Black Caucus to promote the idea of Hillary Clinton as the Vice President, in the hopes that a joint Obama - Clinton ticket would be unstoppable come November. While this may be true, you can be assured that if Clinton becomes the Vice Presidential nominee, the Republican Party will surely revamp her attacks against Obama made during the primary campaigning to once again try to divide sentiment in the party. Also, his concession of the vice presidential slot to Senator Clinton, would in many ways destroy his well maintained image of not bending to special interests and contributions. In the next week we can expect Senator Clinton to bow out of the race with a shining endorsement of Barack Obama. Obama in the meantime will be traveling to Virginia to start his general election campaign in what he sees as a potential battleground in November. Obama and his campaign have made clear that they are not in a hurry to announce a running mate, and thus you can expect them to wait for some of the intra-party division and animosity to die down before making a decision.
Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:41:00 +0200 Last night Senator Obama sealed the Nomination for the Democratic Party, becoming the first African American ever to do so. Even though he has clinched the nomination, Senator Clinton still has yet to suspend her campaign. If she does not end her campaign and give Obama a glowing endorsement, the party will effectually still be divided, and Sen. Obama will have a upwards battle against both Clinton supporters and McCain supporters come November. Rumors now circulate about whether Obama will offer Clinton a Vice Presidential spot on the Democratic ticket. While it would serve to help unite the party, it may be useful for him to consider using his Vice Presidential slot for someone that will bring in a unique battle ground constituency such as the Latino vote. Considering the long, drawn out, and often times scathing battle between these two candidates, a double ticket will surely not come without its fair share of animosity and bitterness. Mon, 02 Jun 2008 02:27:00 +0200 Senator Clinton won the Puerto Rico primary today with 68% percent of the vote, compared to Obama's 32%. This is a commanding victory, however it does not do a whole lot in way of improvining Sen. Clinton's odds in the nomination. The delegate total is now 2,070 to 1,915 in favor of Senator Obama, with 2118 needed to secure the nomination now that half of the votes from Michigan and Florida will be seated at the DNC. More significantly, however this primary battle serves to further highlight the issue Barack Obama has in carrying Latino support. While Puerto Rico does not vote in the General Election, the overwhelming support for Clinton over Obama among Latino voters needs to be seriously address by the Obama campaign. This could possibly herald Bill Richardson as a possible vice presidential selection, as a Latino Vice President would surely curb his problems among the Latino population.
Sun, 01 Jun 2008 03:04:00 +0200 As expected, when the Rules Committee met today to decide how to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida, they decided that only half the delegates will be seated. This means that Senator Clinton gained only 24 delegates overall on Obama, not nearly as many as she was hoping for. This battle is quickly becoming ridiculous, and it is time for Senator Clinton to drop out of this race, for fear of what it could do to the Democratic Party. She is creating unnecessary inflammation of the situation by presenting the seating of the delegates in the light of a civil rights issue. Not only does this serve to trivialize actual civil rights issues, it is preposterous for her to attempt to place the blame on the DNC for its decision in the affair. If anyone deserves blame for making it so that the voters of Michigan and Florida did not get their full share of delegates, it is their states' parties for actively and knowingly break the rules of the Democratic Party knowing full well the penalties for their actions. However, the Clinton campaign has gone from being desperate to being downright ridiculous. Sen. Clinton has been calling for the committee to seat all of her delegates from Michigan while giving Obama none, even though 40% of the vote was uncommitted and Obama's name was not on the ballot. Let's face it, this is not about getting anyone's voice heard, and it is certainly not about civil rights, this is the egotistical ramblings and denial of the woman that would have been the first female nominee for a major party in America. If she had such qualms about the civil rights of the issue, then why didn't she bring that kind of rhetoric to the discussion when it was decided last year? While I understand her will to continue fighting on, and while it was admirable at first, it is time to look at the facts and the consequences of one's actions, and gracefully bow out of the race.
Thu, 29 May 2008 01:39:00 +0200 Lawyers from the Democratic Party have decided that the DNC will only be able to seat half of the delegates from Michigan and Florida when it meets this coming Saturday. This comes as a blow to the Clinton campaign, as this means that she will now not be able to pick up enough delegates to significantly halt Sen. Obama's seemingly unstoppable momentum. While the Obama campaign itself has said that it would like to see the delegates seated, it will be interesting to see what effect seating half of the delegates from the previously banned states will have on other states' regard for party rules. Regardless of how many delegates are ultimately seated from the states, it seems perposterous that Sen. Clinton should receive undue credit for her victory in Michigan where Obama was not even on the ticket, and while she probably would have won in Florida even if there had been campaigning (as the state has an unusually high elderly population), campaigning from the Obama camp would have surely decreased the margin of victory.
Sat, 24 May 2008 02:03:00 +0200 Explaining her resistance to dropping out of the race, Hillary Clinton said today, "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I dont understand it". The comment immediately sparked off controversy, as it seems to imply that she's staying in the race in case there is an assassination of Barack Obama. She later made an apology to the Kennedy family and explained that she meant only that historically primary races went well into the Summer months. However, I doubt that this controversy will end here, especially given Clinton's comments on middle class white support in past weeks that came across with a racist tinge. The Obama campaign addressed her comment by saying, "Sen. Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign". Meanwhile rumours have circled that Bill Clinton is purporting that Hillary Clinton run as Vice President with Barack Obama. The New York Times wrote that "He believes that an Obama-Clinton ticket could help unify the party, and he thinks she has earned a meeting with Mr. Obama to discuss the possibility". Given comments like these, I sincerley doubt Barack Obama's willingness to include Hillary Clinton on the campaign ticket.
Fri, 23 May 2008 06:06:00 +0200 McCain, like Obama in weeks past is coming under increased scrutiny for his relationships with and endorsements by Reverend John Hagee and Rod Parsley. John Hagee has been quoted as saying that Hitler was fulfilling the will of God by increasing the Jewish peoples desire to reclaim Israel, while Rod Parsley advocates that Islam is an inherently violent religion. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the next couple of weeks. While John McCain was much quicker than Barack Obama in distancing himself from the pastors, you can be assured that McCain and the RNC will be much more hesitant in bringing up Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright in the general election, for fears of the counter attack possibilities.
Wed, 21 May 2008 06:18:00 +0200 Sen. Clinton won the Kentucky Primary tonight by a margin of ~35% while Sen. Obama seems to have come out on top in Oregon with what appears to be roughly 58% of the vote. Although Hillary's win in Kentucky was decisive to say the least, Obama picked up enough delegates tonight for him to claim that he was won the majority of pledged delegates (delegates assigned due to primaries/caucases). This is incredibly important, as many of the remaining superdelegates have remained on the fence for the express purpose that they wanted to go with the people's decision. If the delegates from Florida and Michigan are not seated by the DNC, then there is no strong case against the argument that Barack Obama is the choice of the Democratic voters. While it was apparent throughout Obama's speech that he has moved on from standing off with Clinton, to trying to win over her voters, and is now aggresively positioning himself for a general election report with Sen. McCain, he did not come out and openly declare victory. This is most likely because he does not want to alienate Clinton's supporters, but the pundits (once again) on all the major news stations, reiterated the point that it will be almost impossible for Clinton to clinch the nomination. Don't expect her to drop out before the remaining primaries if Obama has still not garnered the required delegates. However, the influx of superdelegates to the Obama campaign should see a significant, and perhaps decisive, increase in the next few days. Tue, 20 May 2008 05:51:00 +0200 In approaching the general election, it is interesting to note where the candidates are receiving their money, and how they are handling the finances of their campaign. While both John McCain and Barack Obama initially indicated that they would rely upon public financing to try to take big money out of presidential politics, it seems that likely that Senator Obama will renege on his commitment, as his grassroots based fundraising machine is one of the most powerful ever built by a presidential nominee. Senator McCain on the other hand will use funds provided by the RNC, which have already reached an impressive 40 million dollars, due largely in part to fundraising efforts by President Bush. Many feel as if Senator Obama's breaking of his promise to use public financing in the general election is an omen of things to come, while others just see it as the practical decision given the circumstances. Regardless, it seems as if a precedent for public financing will not be set this campaign cycle. In other news, Senator Obama has made clear that he will not announce victory over Senator Clinton until after the end of the primaries, yet has turned much of efforts towards the looming prospect of facing Sen. McCain in a general election battle (as can be seen by his recent rhetoric). Senator Clinton, on the other hand seems to believe that she still has a place in this race, which makes me wonder whether her campaign is in sharp denial or just bad at math (I suspect the former). Sat, 17 May 2008 07:00:00 +0200 The fourth installment of America's Problems revolves around the issue of guns. The Second Amendment to the Constitution states that, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", and it is one of the most hotly debated and seemingly widely misconceived amendment to the Constitution. The passage clearly states that there is a right to bear arms for citizens participating in a "well regulated militia", yet this has become a source of huge political debate, where now you have to pretend to be a hunter to become elected to Republican offices to qualm the fears of avid gun protectionists. John McCain said today that, "It seems every election, politicians who support restrictions on the Second Amendment dress up in camouflage and pose with guns to demonstrate they care about hunters, even though few gun owners fall for such obvious political theater" to an audience of the NRA, an organization that he has historically not seen eye to eye with. The NRA is opposed to John McCain because he believes in background checks before the purchase of firearms. The question is, when did a well regulated militia become a gun toting free for all? I don't really understand why the NRA itself wants convicted felons to be able to purchase sub-machine guns, but regardless of their agenda, ownership of guns by citizens (apart from members of a militia) has no clear foundation in the constitution. Thu, 15 May 2008 03:42:00 +0200 The news of Sen. Clinton's win in the West Virginia primary was overshadowed today by John Edwards endorsement of Sen. Obama. This represents in no light terms that the race is over, as John Edwards has seemed to remain on the sidelines waiting for the nominee to be picked. His endorsement could potentially help Barack Obama to win more of the white working class vote, and if it seems to do so in the remaining elections, it would be very reasonable to expect to see John Edwards name on the ticket come November. Even though Edwards had dropped out of the race, he still managed to capture 7% of the vote in the West Virginia primary, which amounts to almost a third of the votes that Obama managed to garner. His endorsement (and possible running mate status) along with his broad appeal to working class whites could have a strong impact on Obama's campaign in a general election situation. The question remains, given the perfect timing of his endorsement to overpower the success of Clinton in West Virginia, as to how long the Obama campaign has been aware of an Edwards endorsement.
Wed, 14 May 2008 02:17:00 +0200 For all intents and purposes Clinton's win in the West Virginia campaign today is meaningless. While she will most likely attempt to use the win as further evidence that she can carry battleground states in November against John McCain, it doesn't make up for the fact that Obama has won twice as many states as she has. The exit polls also show an interesting cross section of sentiments in the race. A New York Times article reveals that "The West Virginia electorate included 2 in 10 white voters who said race was an important factor in their vote and more than 8 in 10 of them backed Mrs. Clinton." Meaning that based solely on pure racism, Hillary Clinton won ~16% of the vote in the primary election. And this is only counting those who openly declared their racism to the pollsters...one can certainly imagine that this represents only a fraction of those where racism played at least a moderate factor in their voting decision. Interestingly enough the polls also showed that "fewer than 4 in 10 of Mrs. Clintons supporters said they would vote for Mr. Obama in November." While this is potentially just out of the spite of the moment, it is never the less a disheartening porportion for the Democratic Party on the road to November with Obama at the helm.
Mon, 12 May 2008 02:31:00 +0200 Senator Obama and Senator John McCain have made drastic changes to their campaign strategies in response to Senator Clinton's demise in the Democratic primaries. Senator Obama has already sent forces to Ohio and Pennsylvania to try to garner more support among independents in the states that he lost to Senator Clinton in primary battles. McCain and the RNC on the other hand have already designed a ~20 million dollar campaign aimed at Senator Obama. Obama however is not planning on slipping into the lapse in judgement and overconfidence that lost him the primary in New Hampshire after his commanding victory in the Iowa primary. He is campaigning fiercely in the upcoming primary states in order to maintain his lead, which is not a problem considering the incredible money making ability of his campaign and the relative financial problems of the Clinton campaign going into the next couple of weeks. If Senator Obama wins the next series of primaries then the mathematics will have him with the majority of pledged delegates, and he should be able to declare victory in the race regardless of whether he has actually reached the amount of delegates needed for the nomination. The next three weeks will lead to Barack Obama as the official nominee of the Democratic party.
Sat, 10 May 2008 00:25:00 +0200 In part three, I focus on the American economy. The problem right now is that, children see the profession that they deem as successful as youth, and then a disproportionate amount of them flock to that profession in later life. Thus in the 80's there was a boom in the numbers of businessmen and MBA's, in the 90's we switched over to becoming lawyers, and in the 2000's it we are seeing a larger interest in medical school and practice. However there is a joint problem with this scheme, the first being that when everyone flocks to a profession, the lucrativeness of that profession inevitably declines, and secondly, lawyers and doctors are not value added professions, and doctors in particular are not marketable in the global economy. The problem is that we are entering an era of global economy in which our country is going to have to reassert its dominance in technology and high end manufacturing/production. However we are falling behind in technology and will certainly be surpassed by countries such as China and India if we do not put a huge emphasis on computer science, mathematics, and the natural sciences. While lawsuits and medical bills can make individuals rich, and are to some extent necessary to support the freedoms and well being of the citizens of our country, they should by no means be the focal point of the economy itself. The reason that we are falling so drastically behind in the trade deficit is not because of poor strategy, but because the other countries have cheaper labor and invest more heavily in production, technology, and technical education. Instead of complaining, putting up protectionist walls and trying to pretend like its going to magically fix itself, we need to get serious about education and give the next generations the tools to fight back in a global economy.
Fri, 09 May 2008 03:36:00 +0200 In the second segment of this series, I address the next fundamental problem with America; the Military Industrial Complex. To begin, the military industrial complex is defined by dictionary.com as being "a network of a nation's military force together with all of the industries that support it". The problems that this complex creates are immense however, and reveal a great shortcoming in the capitalist system of production. When industries are involved in military production, then it is in their best interest to have increased demand, meaning that corporations literally reap the profits of war and thus have huge financial incentives for supporting the instigation of military endeavors. No one should have an ulterior motive for war, and when capitalism inherently pushes these motives upon immense corporations with political ties, capitalism has gone too far. We need to take the highly lucrative military contracts and internalize them, and make military production part of the governments function in order to eliminate the ulterior influence and motives of politically connected military corporations.
Thu, 08 May 2008 01:26:00 +0200 While the Democratic nominee is still not officially determined, the results of last nights primaries in Indiana and North Carolina have all but ensured that Senator Barack Obama will be the nominee of the Democratic party. At this point, the mathematics are against Sen. Clinton. Her long time supporter Senator George McGovern announced that he was switching allegiance because the race was for all intensive purposes over. This sentiment resounded among the political pundits in Washington, who have almost unanimously declared Barack Obama the nominee. At this point Senator Clinton's campaign is running on the 11+ million dollars that she has personally loaned the campaign and the hope that the delegates from Michigan and Florida will be seated. This hope is at best a pipe dream, as those delegates will not be seated. For one, if the Democrats allowed them to be seated, all the other states would see that there are no penalties for moving up primary dates, and thus no reason for their state not to move theirs up as well. Secondly, the only political reason for choosing in favor of seating the delegates were if the tides were swiftly turning in Clinton's favor, and the party wanted an excuse to make her the nominee without making it look undemocratic. The tides clearly are not swinging in her favor, given Obama's overwhelming victory in North Carolina. Thus I feel safe to say, ladies and gentlemen, after months and months of campaigning, we finally have a Democratic nominee. It is only a matter of time before pressure from the Democratic party drives Senator Clinton out of the race. Tue, 06 May 2008 21:32:00 +0200  A couple of weeks ago the Colgate University Community welcomed the Dalai Lama to speak on the topic of Happiness. Given the current issues regarding China, Tibet, and the upcoming Olympic games, I encourage everyone to watch his speech, especially the end where he answers questions. In response to a question asking him how students at Colgate could help non-believers to find faith, he responded first by chuckling and then by saying that you shouldn't push your religious belief on others. Interestingly enough, outside there were protesters claiming that the Dalai Lama himself was subdueing religious freedoms in his own country. The merit of these claims is debatable however. Regardless, his speech was based firmly on the principles of nonviolence and hope for the next generation to enact change in the world. Links: Tue, 06 May 2008 01:55:00 +0200 This blog entry starts a series of posts entitled America's Problems. The first problem that will be addressed in this series is the issue of politicians seeing politics as a career rather than an interlude from their actual life. The Federalist Papers states on the issue of election to the House of Representatives that besides the limitations that you must be a citizen for at least 7 years and be at least 25 years of age, "the door of this part of the federal government is open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith" (Federalist Papers No. 52). Alexander Hamilton voices his skepticism towards the possibility of a skew in representation when he writes in The Federalist Papers No. 60 the following:
"But upon what principle is the discrimination of the places of election to be made, in order to answer the purpose of the meditated preference? Are "the wealthy and the well-born," as they are called, confined to particular spots in the several States? Have they, by some miraculous instinct or foresight, set apart in each of them a common place of residence? Are they only to be met with in the towns or cities? Or are they, on the contrary, scattered over the face of the country as avarice or chance may have happened to cast their own lot or that of their predecessors? If the latter is the case, (as every intelligent man knows it to be) is it not evident that the policy of confining the places of election to particular districts would be as subversive of its own aim as it would be exceptionable on every other account? The truth is, that there is no method of securing to the rich the preference apprehended, but by prescribing qualifications of property either for those who may elect or be elected. But this forms no part of the power to be conferred upon the national government. Its authority would be expressly restricted to the regulation of the TIMES, the PLACES, the MANNER of elections. The qualifications of the persons who may choose or be chosen, as has been remarked upon other occasions, are defined and fixed in the Constitution, and are unalterable by the legislature." However, Alexander Hamilton clearly did not foresee the grave problems created by media and mass marketing provided by the Internet, Radio, and Television. While it is true that you cannot necessarily buy your way into the House of Representatives, Congress never the less is made up of predominately rich, white, males with law degrees. The problem however is that now, once the Legislative branch is controlled by a select group that is in no way representative of the diversity that America has to offer, there is no feasible way to dislodge this group form power, as they control the laws about Congressional tenure, and clearly have no incentive to limit it. While to some this does not seem like that big of a deal, when one looks at the broader picture of connections and incentives, it becomes clear that a congress comprised of wealthy lawyers will at the end of the day have wealthy lawyers in mind when they are considering the state of the nation. It seems sadly that the only way to uproot this entrenched force is the combined will of the American people, a feat that, given the current political scene, is incredibly improbable at best. Mon, 05 May 2008 02:35:00 +0200 In the last few weeks with the breaking of the military analysts Pentagon connections, it became pressing for me to distinguish between news sources that I considered honest and trustworthy and those that I do not. While before I thought of CNN and MSNBC on one side of the spectrum and FOX News on the other, both supplying accurate information with a spin, this is however possibly not the case, as all cable news seems to be not only biased but nonfactual in many regards. As of now the sources that I use for my daily news reading and as sources for my posts include, The Economist, The New York Times, CNN (this has in many ways fallen off of the list), FactCheck.org, The Wall Street Journal, PollingReport.com, and the respective websites of the current presidential candidates. Grown dissatisfied with major television news reporting, many have turned to blogs such as this for their information, and while sometimes this helps cut through corporate interests and other distortions, it lacks in many ways the accountability of a major news network. For one, these blogs are notorious for starting rumours that sweep the web, for example the scandal about Dick Cheney with the reflection of a naked woman (which is clearly his hand) in his sunglasses. However, while some of these appear harmless, others disseminate views that have no place in a rational discussion. One such view, that appears to many on the liberal side of the political spectrum as appealing is that the current administration was involved in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. There are countless myths about it, and a search for such conspiracies on the internet brings back countless websites proclaiming absolute evidence on the subject, however if one digs deeper, one finds that everything proclaimed is completely fabricated. All of the popular myths are explained by an article by Popular Mechanics entitled, "Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report". The problem, is that while alternative news sources can be very enlightening there is always the possibility that although convincing, they are based on information that is either fabricated or taken out of context. Thus, while I encourage the spread of alternative media, it is essential to always check the information behind them, and to get an array of perspectives on the issue before coming to a conclusion for yourself. This is why I always list my sources, so that those who read my articles can have a base point to attack or question the validity of my arguments. Please respond with links to the websites or news sources that you feel are particularly good (if they are clearly biased towards one side of the political spectrum, feel free to note that as well). Thanks for reading.
Sun, 04 May 2008 02:34:00 +0200 While this post shadows my article from the previous week, I think it is important to once again ask, "What happened to the Pentagon interference story?" and why is it not still one of the top features on the New York Times. If you have not yet heard about the manipulation and connections between senior military analysts and the Pentagon (as well as high up members of the White House, such as Donald Rumsfeld) then please follow this link to the NY times article "Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand". I am at a complete loss as to why this hasn't sparked more controversy than it has, and why there are not currently congressional investigations into the matter. While, as I addressed in my article, other networks will not give this story coverage for obvious reasons, it still seems that the general public would have demanded some sort of response. The lack of response signifies to me, either that we still harbor faith in the current administration or that we have sunk into complete and total apathy. Regardless as to why this hasn't sparked more interest, it is our duty as American citizens to demand answers and exploration into this story. If the story does pan out to be as widespread and intentional as the author portrays it as being, there should be severe penalties for all involved. The manipulation of the American people through the media cannot go unanswered, or else it will quickly become governmental precendent. Documents: Fri, 02 May 2008 21:18:00 +0200 Both Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator John McCain are proposing a tax holiday in which the excise tax on tax will be eliminated for the summer months. As quoted in the New York Times, Hillary Clinton said that , "I believe it is important to get every member of Congress on the record. Do they stand with hard pressed Americans who are trying to pay their bills at the gas station or do they once again stand with the big oil companies? That's a vote I'm going to try to get, because I want to know where they stand and I want them to tell us - are they with us or against us?" I'm not sure whether Senator Clinton actually believes this, or whether she thinks the American people are stupid. It has to be one of the two, as, from an economics standpoint this statement makes absolutely no sense. Getting rid of an excise tax on gas will largely have no effect on big oil not hurt it. We put tariffs on imported products, because raised prices mean diminished sales. High gas prices in turn mean lowered consumption. Getting rid of an excise tax on gas, and thus lowering the price of gas, thus boosts sales for big oil at no cost to them, and thus rather than diminishing big oil profits this plan would merely make the big oil companies directly pay the tax rather than paying it in reduced sales at the pump. Senator Clinton is trying to sham us into thinking that she is going against big oil, when all the economics behind her plan, largely have no effect on big oil. Meanwhile there is nothing to prevent the oil companies to raise the price of gas to compensate their new found tax, thus keeping the price virtually the same, and changing nothing. What's more is that providing relief for the oil dependency problem in America will only serve to perpetuate the problem, rather than solve it. What will 3 months of lower taxes on gas do? Absolutely nothing.
|
  |
contact |
All rss from this site
Print this article
Webmasters ! Get this feed on your site