CHESSNOID

Humor me on this. If Hillary ends up winning the popular vote, and Barack ends up winning the most delegates, then will the Will of the People been really carried out. All silly rules aside, and they are silly indeed, the votes in Michigan and Florida should be counted even if their delegates aren’t. We can even give Barack all the “other” votes in Michigan. Both were on the Florida ballot. I hear the Obama campaign saying it as their mantra, “the people have spoken rhetoric”, but why don’t we count all the votes.

As I have said, I will support both nominees when one is actually chosen. It looks like it will be Obama. What turns me off is that these delegates are trying to sway the people’s vote by endorsements after he loses a primary. When Obama speaks of new politics in Washington, I really see his actions contradicting his words. I am afraid that if he is the nominee and is able to win the Presidential race, then he may not keep his word about withdrawing troops immediately. I remember his response to McCain what he would do if terrorists threat occurred in Iraq or Iran after the troop withdrawal, he seemed to waiver and said he would send troops back or keep some of them there. Obama’s own campaign said that his troop withdrawal plan was not realistic. I don’t like to hear that type of crap in his own corner. The part I don’t like is it might be true and that his promises may be empty.

I know many democrats love Barack and Hillary to the extreme that they hate the other nominee. Hillary usually gets the blame for dividing the party, but in reality they both are to blame. We know Hillary has dealt with some crooked people in the past, but it seems all politicians do. John McCain even with his patriotic war service doesn’t escape that characteristic. Does Barack? Hell no! He is a politician just like Hillary and John. He has questionable associations. His blind faith supporters state he isn’t guilty except by association. I say he is guilty of being a politician and is no different from Clinton or McCain.

If Barack wasn’t running for President, and was just your neighbor you would probably report him to Homeland Security or the IRS. You see questionable real estate deals with questionable people like Rezko who is on trial for federal corruption. Then you see him with this Wuther Underground terrorist person, and you say Hmmmm. Then you see him with his Pastor for 20 years being inflammatory to the racial tension in America, and he “distances” himself from that man but only now for political purposes. Then you hear about his indirect dealings with another Shady character Iraqi-born billionaire Nadhmi Auchi through Tony Rezko. He is not guilty of any wrong doing yet, but this stuff does remind me of Bush Jr. And we all know how that story played out. ;(
Is Barack really an “Agent of Change”? I would like to think so, but his actions have not shown that he is, nor has his associations. To me he is just another politician working the crowd. And working the crowd he is. When I first heard him at the Democratic convention, I was truly WOWed by his speech. When I listened to him in the 21 debates, I can’t say he came off very polished. In fact, he came off less than impressive. I can put all his associations aside since I do that with all the other nominees. His master plan doesn’t come across as sound. He panders to the voters just like all nominees. His bowling and stinky score of 37. What the? How can anyone bowl a 37? Also, with the holiday gas tax he opposes. He supported it in his home state 3 times by voting for it when gas was in the $2.00 range. If he thought it was good at the state level, why would he do a 180 on a federal level.

While an Illinois state senator, Obama supported a state tax holiday very much like Clinton’s proposal, but without the saving mechanism of a windfall profits tax.

CBS News says Obama voted for the temporary lifting of the tax three times in the state Senate. The tax holiday was finally approved during a special session in June of 2000, when Illinois motorists were furious that gas prices had just topped $2 a gallon in Chicago. The moratorium lifted the state’s 5 percent sales tax on gasoline through the end of 2000.

Obama told constituents that gasoline prices would drop: “Gas retailers must post on each pump a statement that indicates that the state tax has been suspended and that this temporary elimination of the tax should be reflected in the price per gallon of gas.”

During one state Senate floor debate, Obama joked that he wanted signs on gas pumps in his district to say, “Senator Obama reduced your gasoline prices.”

He said he learned that it didn’t work:

“I voted for it, and then six months later we took a look, and consumers had not benefited at all,” Obama said. Having learned this hard economics lesson from his Illinois “mistake,” Obama now argues that a federal tax holiday also will fail for the same reason — the oil companies will take it all.

So why would he vote for it 3 times. Also, what does he base that assumption on. A study conducted after that was done proves otherwise.

But Obama is wrong. He did not learn this lesson. In fact, the only scientific study done on the pass-through of the tax holiday savings to Illinois consumers (and those in Indiana, as well, whose citizens enjoyed a similar holiday) found that it actually worked to a large extent.

The study is titled “$2.00 Gas! Studying the Effects of a Gas Tax Moratorium,” by Joseph J. Doyle Jr. and Krislert Samphantharak. Download the PDF here. The authors concluded that “the suspension of the 5% sales tax led to decreases in retail prices of 3% compared to neighboring states. And when the tax was reinstated, retail prices rose by roughly 4%.”

This suggests that the tax holiday delivered at least 60 percent of the tax savings to motorists.

The economic basis for attacks on the Clinton tax holiday is a fundamental economic theory called “tax incidence.” It says that the cost of a tax on any consumer product will be borne by those with lesser “elasticity” in the tug of war between suppliers and consumers. “Tax incidence” falls mostly upon the group that responds least to price — the group that has the more inelastic price-quantity curve. In this instance, assuming that the supply of gas is pretty much fixed, it means consumers will end up paying those missing tax dollars directly to the gas companies in the form of higher prices. The increased demand triggered by the price cut will supposedly lead drivers to bid up the price of gas, swallowing the tax cut.

But this is not what happened in Illinois and Indiana back in 2000. And there are factors at work today that might provide equal or more “elasticity” to the producers, and prevent consumers from paying the price for the tax cut.

I will vote for him if he is the nominee because he promises to withdraw the troops immediately. It just irritates me when his maniacal supporters keep saying he is different when he is really the same. Barack is no different than Hillary or John. He is a politician and a good one to fool all these voters to thinking he is not one.