I hate Clinton. So much.

If we have a tax holiday the price will just jump up some other way, then when the holiday ends the gas tax will make the price astronomical.

It seems to me that the only valid objection people seem to have with the proposal is that revenue to the government will decrease during the period. I could give a damn if the government has to do with a little less for a short period of time. People that conduct their personal finance in the manner of the US government go bankrupt. There is NO sound fiscal policy in Washington and until they stop politicizing it, there never will be.

Eliminating the tax will not increase demand. The price is going to be outrageous already. It's not as if we are talking about taking the price from four dollars to two. The average person might save two to four dollars a tank for the gas they are already going to buy. For people who will do a significant amount of driving the amount they "save" will be decent. Truckers might reduce their fuel costs by $600 over the season. Tell the people who move everything we use that that isn't significant.

This debate, in congress not here, is very illustrative of why no real significant and constructive change is likely to happen.

While I don't oppose the gas tax holiday it seems rather pointless to me. Whether the tax fuel or not I already know I'm going to be paying through the nose this summer. What we need is sound energy policy. We need to go nuclear for power production. We need to exploit our own supplies of oil. Continuing this policy of non-action and complaining is going to continue to escalate the problem and as long as we vote people in who care more for the environmentalist wacko vote than enacting sound policy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

If it seems pointless to you, then you should oppose it.

According to the numbers you posted earlier, the gas tax gets the government $110,670,000 per day. That's $9,960,300,000 over three months. The government is already spending way more than they should (*cough Iraq cough*) and $10 billion is a lot to lose, especially when the average American will save like $70 total.

We're already getting our "I hope this raises my atrocious ratings" stimulus package from Bush, this is just unnecessary. It's just for the candidates to say "Look, I saved you some money! Vote for me now!" Obama at least realizes that it's a pointless cut that may even hurt the country in the long run.

Actually, according to McCain's plan, the government won't go wanting. People were concerned that the $9 billion cost would gut the Highway Trust Fund, which pays for roads, bridges, subways, etc. and put hundreds of thousands of workers on a three month unpaid vacation.

However, McCain has clarified that the $9 billion will be replaced by general Treasury revenues, increasing the budget deficit by another $9 billion, plus an additional $380 million per year in interest payments.

McCain's plan is an example of irresponsible fiscal policy and is at odds with his earlier campaign pledge to balance the federal budget by 2012.

Stop muddling reality, people. Your wonky concepts of money are based on flawed logic. Hillary Clinton can do things right, on the first day, despite whatever crazy problems stand in her way. Wookie would agree.

Hillary is the empty promise queen. She reigns with her husband.

Eliminating the gas tax will not increase demand, correct. Extremely rigid supply and an increased summer demand WILL increase price though. In the long run, this probably could do something (due to savings from producers being able to reinvest into more refineries lowering prices in the future). But for a short term policy, it really just won't work.

You are correct though in that this really doesn't speak towards a sound energy policy that we need, unfortunately.

If the government 'has to do with a little less', then so do we. The government's money IS our money.

I think rather it's the other way round. Your money IS the government's money.

Everyones money is intertwined with everyone elses.

Mmm..no. I regard the goverment as another business entity whose shareholders are the electorate. Unfortunately the shareholders are dumb and thus allows the board of directors to get away with wildly stupid spending. I firmly believe that if the government were with A LOT less in their reserves, we'd see some sound spending policies. I'll see sound spending polices before landfish or I get laid, unfortunately.

Play Mass Effect
According to Fox it's as close to sex as you will ever get.

Bull****. Increasing government expenses (as is the usual Washington policy) is unsound, but decreasing government income is not? **** that.