Posted on 01/25/2012 7:39:42 AM PST by red flanker
Economists who have added up all the externalities associated with driving conclude that a tax exceeding $2 a gallon makes sense. That would provide substantial revenue that could be used to reduce other taxes. By taxing bad things more, we could tax good things less." - N. Gregory Mankiw
Mr. Mankiw needs to move the car from Harvard Yard.
He needs to get out a little more - most of the country does not have the choice of using public transit. And I would love to know how he intends for the farmers of America to "car-pool" their tractors and save gas. And I wonder how people who are having trouble paying the mortgage now will have the money to sell their house at a loss, pay huge taxes both selling and buying a new one (not to mention a down payment, or the cost of moving). Not to mention the inflationary spiral - because if you have it, more than likely, a gas powered vehicle transported it (unless you are a survivalist).
But, except for being a regressive tax; having an inordinate impact on non-city dwellers; triggering an inflationary spiral in the midst of a recession; crippling the tourism industry; and putting the final nail in the coffin of most airlines - other than THAT, there's no reason to oppose a $2 a gallon gas tax!
Oh, maybe there is one reason he could understand - it would raise the price of cabs and limousines!
Newt will shove it up his a$$.
I should have clarified and said ‘publicly agrees’..
We already know he’s a liar, but if he actually says publicly that he agrees with Coleman’s statement, then it’s all over except the crying.
Yeah..
Another ‘read my lips’ moment.
Defending Mittens again..?
I swear, I don't know what you see in that guy.
Gotcha. I can’t see him doing that now. If by the horrific chance he got the nomination, maybe - to get some of the ‘rat vote because he knows there will be a 3rd party or a write in if he’s the nominee and he will need some of barry voters. But it’s a given he won’t repeal it whether he owns up or not.
Just thought of this - wonder if barry will ask him to be his VP if he doesn’t get the R nomination.
There was a thread here yesterday with pictures of mitt's father with alinsky. And I can't find it!! Your comment made me think of it and I don't think you are far off, at all.
“wonder if barry will ask him to be his VP if he doesn’t get the R nomination.”
He’d be a perfect ‘fit’..
:)
I think that you largely misread Romney on this. I don’t believe he’s got any deep burning desire to “go lib”. That said, if he had a liberal congress - he’d be left center president. On the flip side, I don’t think if given a conservative congress he’d be any more likely to veto or push back. I think naturally he’s a bit right of center but mostly about getting things done (which can be scary as it was with Bush). All that said, given the choices on the table I’m at Romney, Santorum, Paul, and then Gingrich.
Here’s to wishing Cain had held the sausage. I think he would have been a game changer.
Liberal Romama and liberal Obomney split the vote 30/30 and the conservative Tea Party candidate gets the vote of the 40% of Americans who consistently identify as conservative in polls.
I think some of them have talked about free clinics. Give a tax deduction for those clinics who provide free health care to the needy. Make use of charities. I think what the candidates are all basically saying is to put health care in the hands of each state and let them decide how to cover the people who aren’t paying for their own health care already.
Frankly this is why the individual mandate was invented by the conservative side to begin with. Liberals were pushing single-payer national health care, and the mandate was the answer to making sure people with pre-existing conditions were covered. Make people pay into insurance and if they don’t, make them pay a penalty that could theoretically be used to cover the costs later, I guess. It could easily be reworked constitutionally safely into a tax that is levied, and then anyone who buys insurance could fully deduct the cost of it from their taxes.
But, basically there are always going to be people who aren’t paying any taxes and can’t afford to buy insurance. Romneycare and Obamacare end up creating welfare programs for them to use. I assume as it is now, those people show up to emergency rooms and get free care mandated by law, which is socialized on the rest of us who keep seeing our health care costs go up.
Forget the social engineering aspect or that people would end up paying way more for everything, everyone knows the other taxes would never be done away with. A VAT would simply be piled on.
I say get out of the insurance regulation business. Most of what people don’t like about health insurance is because of the massive regulations.
Open up the market to real competition across state lines and we’ll get back to the simple system of hospitalization coverage (or called castastrophic insurance) and pay for little things out of pocket with an HSA.
Cost would go down and plans would be ala cart instead of one size fits all.
What would you expect from an idiot that lost his job to Al Freakin’ Franken?
Santorum couldn’t lead a thirsty horse to water.
He’s a follower. He was told to back Specter and he did and it cost him his senate seat. A true conservative fighting on principle would have backed Toomey instead of caving to the GOP establishment he so craved to be a part of.
No different than Romney to me.
Make health insurance more affordable and portable by giving Americans the choice of a generous tax credit or the ability to deduct the value of their health insurance up to a certain amount and by allowing Americans to purchase insurance across state lines, increasing price competition in the industry. ...
Cover the sickest with a High Risk Pool set up by each state to cover the uninsured who have become too sick to buy health insurance. ...
This comprehensive approach—cost, quality, competition, and coverage—can solve the problem of the uninsured with no individual mandate and no employer mandate. Everyone would be able to obtain essential health care and coverage when needed. For those who are too poor to buy health insurance, states will have more flexibility to provide them with the assistance they need to buy it. For those who nevertheless choose not to purchase coverage and then become too sick to do so, high risk pools will provide access to coverage. Once you have health insurance, you are assured you can keep it. By contrast, even Obamacare for all its trillions in taxes, spending, new entitlements, and new bureaucracy still does not achieve universal coverage.
There is no mention of pre-existing conditions, though it is on every voter's mind.
I have never laid down such an ultimatum so far in my life. But if I can't trust the GOP to fight Obamacare, then there is no use voting for them anymore.
Bump
Romney 2012: when 1 democrat nominee just isn’t enough.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.