http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30friedman.htmlHillary Clinton has decided to line up with John McCain in pushing to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline .... This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks.
...
The McCain-Clinton gas holiday proposal is a perfect example of what energy expert Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network describes as the true American energy policy today: “Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most.”

Good for Barack Obama for resisting this shameful pandering.

This is what's dangerous. Friedman is misrepresenting Hillary's stance on easing the gas tax. She said she'd only do it if she could find the money to cover the lost revs elsewhere. So, Friedman unfairly paints her with the McSame brush. (Gee, I wonder who Friedman supports?)

I've never been a fan of Friedman, and I'm less of a fan of the NYTimes. Can't trust that rag anymore after their support of Bush/Cheney and the war. They sold out America.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30friedman.htmlHillary Clinton has decided to line up with John McCain in pushing to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline .... This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks.
...
The McCain-Clinton gas holiday proposal is a perfect example of what energy expert Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network describes as the true American energy policy today: “Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most.”

Good for Barack Obama for resisting this shameful pandering.

This is what's dangerous. Friedman is misrepresenting Hillary's stance on easing the gas tax. She said she'd only do it if she could find the money to cover the lost revs elsewhere.
Friedman:
No, no, no, we’ll just get the money by taxing Big Oil, says Mrs. Clinton. Even if you could do that, what a terrible way to spend precious tax dollars — burning it up on the way to the beach rather than on innovation? This is the point. If Clinton is serious in her pledges to protect the environment and reduce dependence on foreign oil, why in the world would she want to adopt a government policy of giving incentives to consume more oil?

It's not about covering the lost revenue, it's about hurting both our balance of trade and the environment by importing and consuming more oil. Taxing oil companies won't ameliorate either of these consequences.

Friedman:
No, no, no, we’ll just get the money by taxing Big Oil, says Mrs. Clinton. Even if you could do that, what a terrible way to spend precious tax dollars — burning it up on the way to the beach rather than on innovation? This is the point. If Clinton is serious in her pledges to protect the environment and reduce dependence on foreign oil, why in the world would she want to adopt a government policy of giving incentives to consume more oil?

It's not about covering the lost revenue, it's about hurting both our balance of trade and the environment by importing and consuming more oil. Taxing oil companies won't ameliorate either of these consequences.

I guess it depends upon the problem you want to solve?

I'd hardly call it an 'energy policy...' 'Tis an election year. It kills two birds with one stone: It's a temp incentive to buy votes, while helping the lower income people, and truck drivers, who are feeling the spike in gas prices disproportionately. From what I've heard, it would only save the avg driver $28... I also wouldn't doubt it's something the oil industry is willing to give back since they've been raping America lately... The tax would be offset by increased consumption. Win/win/win/lose.

Pandering - 1, Global Warming - 0

Wait, what, issues?

I lost faith in Tom Friedman (not that I ever really had it) after he helped sell Americans on invading Iraq, and then got rich off that mistake.

But he's dead on here. The tax holiday is just like Bush's tax cuts in 2000: a bribe to voters.

"Suck.................on.................this...... ..................."

The brilliant analytical mind of Tom Friedman, ladies and gentlemen. :rolleyes:


If Hillary wants to have a surtax on the oil companies, why doesn't she just do so, and skip the whole "gas tax holiday"? Then use part of that money to send everyone a gas consumption rebate come tax time?

Cutting 18 cents off the price of gas is foolish at this point, since the price will just go upo by that much in a week or two anyway. So where are you then? Right back where you started, but without $10 billion to go towards your infrastructure. Collapsing bridges in Minnesota, anyone?

Typical America, always looking for the short quick, what's in it for me fix, and ignoring the long term

Just like I was unprepared to throw 2 time Pulitzer Prize winner, Bob Woodward under the bus years ago. I am just as unprepared to throw this 2 time winner under the bus for being genuinely wrong about Iraq (and in a way he was right, just overly idealistic).

As for this editorial...it is what it purports itself to be, his well studied opinion. Well in my opinion...if the candidates counselors are not telling them all about it...then Hillrod and McCaniac need better advisors. This was a well written piece of, slap them across the face, journalism. Glad to see Mr. Friedman back from his leave and writing strong anthems that can help form sound opinion.

"Suck.................on.................this...... ..................."

The brilliant analytical mind of Tom Friedman, ladies and gentlemen. :rolleyes:


If Hillary wants to have a surtax on the oil companies, why doesn't she just do so, and skip the whole "gas tax holiday"? Then use part of that money to send everyone a gas consumption rebate come tax time?

Cutting 18 cents off the price of gas is foolish at this point, since the price will just go upo by that much in a week or two anyway. So where are you then? Right back where you started, but without $10 billion to go towards your infrastructure. Collapsing bridges in Minnesota, anyone?

Typical America, always looking for the short quick, what's in it for me fix, and ignoring the long term

Do you think we'll see the traditional summer vacation price hike? If I recall, it seems like for the past couple years the gas prices spiked right before the summer holiday season. But this year, the prices have been rising steadily all winter and spring.

Do you think we'll see the traditional summer vacation price hike?Yes. The changeover from winter to summer gasoline formulation will bring the usual spike on top of the prices we currently see.

This is what's dangerous. Friedman is misrepresenting Hillary's stance on easing the gas tax. She said she'd only do it if she could find the money to cover the lost revs elsewhere. So, Friedman unfairly paints her with the McSame brush. (Gee, I wonder who Friedman supports?)

I've never been a fan of Friedman, and I'm less of a fan of the NYTimes. Can't trust that rag anymore after their support of Bush/Cheney and the war. They sold out America.

when you voted for Bush. sorry.

Yes. The changeover from winter to summer gasoline formulation will bring the usual spike on top of the prices we currently see.
love me some 10% ethanol...
gas tax holidays are band-aids over a much larger wound. it would only remove what? 0.30-0.50$ per gallon....well, remove that, add summer inflation..and we're right back to what gas prices are....well...right now.

good job Hillary and McSame...way to go! :thumbsup:

friedman is clueless

he's one of those people who are more interested in aphorisms, alliteration and rhyming, than actually analyzing things. he reminds me of dr. phil, he just applies his methods to a different subject.

the lexus and the olive tree, the world is flat, etc. just ridiculous 'concepts' about 'conventional wisdom', etc. now david brooks (bobos aka bourgeoise bohemians, etc.) is another 'high-concept' guy who uses the same methods (though on the right).

gosh, I can't stand friedman. I can't stand people who take unrelated things and try to "draw some deeper meaning" (usually something with nice alliteration, or perhaps a witty acronym) from them.

they abuse language.

dr. phil-esque: "you say you wanna get out, son you better get up--because although you feel down, up is the way you need to go in order to get out" ::::audience claps::::

friedman-esque: "lets look at the situation in the sunni triangle. the ancients had a use for triangles, and I don't think this fact should be lost on us--but as a triangle has a right angle, how do those on the right intend to deal with this problem?"

friedman is clueless

he's one of those people who are more interested in aphorisms, alliteration and rhyming, than actually analyzing things. he reminds me of dr. phil, he just applies his methods to a different subject.

the lexus and the olive tree, the world is flat, etc. just ridiculous 'concepts' about 'conventional wisdom', etc. now david brooks (bobos aka bourgeoise bohemians, etc.) is another 'high-concept' guy who uses the same methods (though on the right).

gosh, I can't stand friedman. I can't stand people who take unrelated things and try to "draw some deeper meaning" (usually something with nice alliteration, or perhaps a witty acronym) from them.

they abuse language.

dr. phil-esque: "you say you wanna get out, son you better get up--because although you feel down, up is the way you need to go in order to get out" ::::audience claps::::

friedman-esque: "lets look at the situation in the sunni triangle. the ancients had a use for triangles, and I don't think this fact should be lost on us--but as a triangle has a right angle, how do those on the right intend to deal with this problem?"

I recently saw him discussing oil. He said (like he was explaining this to a bunch of 5th graders) that he had assumed that places with oil would have more money, therefore be more prosperous, therefore more democratic. But as he researched it, he began to discover that places with oil were more despotic and that there was a negative corelation between oil rich countries and democracy and freedom.

Well no Sh*t Tom. Welcome to the party! People who know geopolitics have known for a long time that places with one predominant and high demand resource wether it is oil, diamonds, rubber, whatever, tend to have despotic leaders. And he was passing it off as though this was his contribution.

I will say this about him though, at least he brings some concepts, that have for a long time been in the domain of academics and policy wonks, to the larger public. I think that
is a good thing, but he is a bit of a charlatan.

dr. phil-esque: "you say you wanna get out, son you better get up--because although you feel down, up is the way you need to go in order to get out" ::::audience claps::::

friedman-esque: "lets look at the situation in the sunni triangle. the ancients had a use for triangles, and I don't think this fact should be lost on us--but as a triangle has a right angle, how do those on the right intend to deal with this problem?"



thanks for the laugh.

I recently saw him discussing oil. He said (like he was explaining this to a bunch of 5th graders) that he had assumed that places with oil would have more money, therefore be more prosperous, therefore more democratic. But as he researched it, he began to discover that places with oil were more despotic and that there was a negative corelation between oil rich countries and democracy and freedom.

Well no Sh*t Tom. Welcome to the party! People who know geopolitics have known for a long time that places with one predominant and high demand resource wether it is oil, diamonds, rubber, whatever, tend to have despotic leaders. And he was passing it off as though this was his contribution.

I will say this about him though, at least he brings some concepts, that have for a long time been in the domain of academics and policy wonks, to the larger public. I think that
is a good thing, but he is a bit of a charlatan.

something similar to one of his books, I don't recall the exact details, but he was struck dumbfounded that in some poor desolate backwater country, his cab driver had an Ipod, or some other piece of modern technology.

Just absolutely baffled him, it did.