What a thoughtful response.

40 gallons a week? What is your mpg and how many miles do you travel?

so how much will be saving if Hillary's plan works?

Tell us.

Go on.

Tell us.

And please show your calculations.

Ditch the Suburban or move closer to wherever you are driving. If you're using that much gas, you're out of the realm where the government will be able to lower your cost significantly. If you can't support the cost, you'll need lifestyle changes.

You need a company car or a company card...

$28.80 per month.  And that is worth stripping the funds that go to the states to keep the roads and bridges repaired?

Yah, yah, you are going to tell me she plans on charging a windfall profits tax.  Which is total bullshit because:

1)  She would have to draft the bill and get it through congress and signed by the President.  If you think that will be her then it would not happen until after January 2009.  

2)  Congress would have to hold hearings to prove that the oil companies are in fact earning windfall profits before any tax could be charged.

It would be about 2 years at the earliest before the tens of millions this will cost the states this summer could be recovered.  All so you can save $28.80 per month on gas this summer which you will spend repairing your car due to the awful condition of the roads and bridges.  And of course, all those out of work highway department employess are going to be really happy about it.

The entire scheme is stupid pandering to make people think she is doing something.  Even Hillary knows it is a bad idea but she thinks the voters are stupid enough to fall for it.  Maybe some of them are.

Number 1: A windfall tax will not be signed into law this summer. Thus if there is a tax holiday it will can't be funded by that.

Number 2: Clinton already proposed a windfall tax to be used for other purposes, i.e., research in new technologies. Thus she is using the same money twice.

Number 3: There is no way to mandate that the .18 per gallon in federal tax would be passed along to consumers. Most experts think it will not be, so all it would do is to increase oil company profits.

in an election season. It doesn't save people more than an oil change: about $30 and that's before we factor in the expected rise in gas prices due to increased demand resulting from a false sense of savings that the suspension is likely to give.

Hillary is about to trap herself.

Hillary's bill will be vetoed, then McCain bill will come to the floor, forcing Hillary to take a vote.

Will she vote for the so-called holiday for working class, giving McCain a victory, or will she vote against it, allowing the repugs to unfairly peg her as a "flip flopper?"

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

You really messed this one up, Hillary.

Hillary and McCain have been hyping the importance of working class, Reagan Democrats.

They've been hyping how beneficial the tax cut will be to consumer's pocketbooks.

low information voters don't care that the tax break would be unfunded.  Reagan and Dubya proved low information voters don't care about unfunded tax breaks.

Then the thugs will lie (which is what the do best), that Hillary was for it before she was against.  

This will sour her appeal with low information, Reagan Democrats - that she voted against the tax break.  the won't go into the weeds and look for the details - they're struggling.

Annie Oakley just shot herself in the foot.

You'd think she'd have better aim, her being a duck hunter and all.

Assuming that Obama also has pollsters and focus groups, why has he run two ads on this and why does he continue to talk about it on the trail?

Because while some people will think they're going to save a lot of money, others won't.  And you don't need 100% to win an election.  

Part of Obama's appeal is that he avoids what he calls "Washington games." This issue is perfect to help him make that case.

Wow.  Anything to win, so f-ck the people.  

Great candidate to vote for.

Former Indiana governor used the gas tax holiday as an election issue.  He won but the tax resumed anyway and he later raised the gas tax. No one was helped.  The people got f-cked over again.  See article:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/05/hoosiers-loved.html

Don't let Hillary f-ck the people.

This is an odious proposal, designed to appeal to people who are pushed to the limit and either too preoccupied or not equipped to judge it on its merits, or lack thereof.

Ooo shiny! Lower gas prices!

It's such a sham.

who the POTUS will be..............again.

"god damn america", whispers citizendave as he looks over his shoulder.

I agree that SOMETIMES people are dumb.  But I also think that many/most people get all their ideas about technical policies like this from the MSM.  So when the MSM almost unanimously pans this idea, most people are going to decide it's a bad idea, whether it has the word "tax cut" in it or not.  I have come around to the idea that people are mostly smart when given the information and tools to be so.  It's part of my de-elitification, if you will.

If she knows politics so well, then why is she so far behind in the delegate count, is bleeding superdelegates, and has now pissed off members of her own party in Congress?

And if she knows policy so well, why is she demonstrating that she has the very same flaws that led to her being unable to get health care reform?

But she's already promised that money to something else -- research on alternative technologies.

Plus it does matter that it won't get passed because it's pure pandering for her to then suggest that this can help people out this summer.

Obama's plan includes a windfall profits tax as well as investments in alternatives.

In discussing health care, I used to ask Clinton supporters what they thought Clinton had learned from her experience in trying to get a plan that would inform what she'd do in the future. Back then she didn't consult with Congress and didn't build a coalition for change. Clinton supporters usually ignored my question or called me names; once in a while, someone would say that Clinton could build coalitions.

Then comes along this issue and we see her attitude.  If you disagree with me, you're against the American people. You're either with me or against me.

Well, that attitude undermined her on health care in the 1990s and we now see that she still has it.  That's not what makes an effective president.

Yep. It's 33 cents a day.

That's IF the reduction is passed on to you despite all economic law to the contrary.

He does nothing but criticize Clinton's proposals, and, for some reason, he doesn't want Congress to go on record regarding a windfall profits tax to pay for any immediate relief at the pump.

Windfall profits taxes are bullshit. The government doesn't have any right to seize the profits of a corporation simply because it decides that they're making too much money. I'm all for eliminating subsidies, but windfall profits taxes are arbitrary and coercive.  

I have a proposal for Obama. If you're not happy with giving poor Americans 28 dollars, where's your proposal for 56, or 84 dollars? Clinton's showing leadership. Obama's just criticizing.

Since when is bribing people with short-term solutions that exacerbate long-term problems in order to save one's political career called "leadership"? If it were, then I guess George W. Bush would be a great leader whereas Harry Truman's leadership ability would be regarded as quite poor. Of course, it's becoming increasingly clear that Hillary Clinton is some variety of LieberDem whose moral nihilism approaches the level of Bush's and whose singular concern is her own political power.

Let me offer a counter-proposal for Americans worried about excessive gas prices:

1. Stop borrowing money to buy shit you don't need. 2. Sell your SUV. 3. Move closer to where you work. 4. Carpool or use public transportation. 5. Stop whining and demanding that the government fix all of your problems for you. Take some personal responsibility you petulant wankers.