1) I'm FOR a gas tax vacation for diesel fuel used in the trucking industry.

2) Unless and until the average speed limit on the Interstate Hwy system is 60 mph I won't believe any consumer is hard up filling their gas tank.

3) Unless and until I see people not accelerating like they are in a Gran Prix or doing the posted speed limit I won't believe any consumer is hard up filling their gas tank.

IF HILLARY OR OBAMA WEREN'T SCARECROWS (LOOKING FOR THEIR BRAINS), THEY WOULD HAVE SHOWN LEADERSHIP BY ASKING AMERICANS AT CAMPAIGN STOPS AND ON INTERVIEWS TO SLOW THE F$CK DOWN AND DO POSTED SPEED LIMITS, TURN OFF THEIR CAR AIR CONDITIONERS WHEN REASONABLE, AND... AND...

Lets just say our leaders suck hind tit.

Unless I am mistaken truckers can use fuel purchases as a tax deduction.

Do they get an actual dollar for dollar discount and do they have carry that extra cost until tax time?

I would think independants would get that as a tax deduction, I'm not sure of the exact tax law. And the reality is that most truckers are not independants and don't pay for their own gas anyway, the company does.

But unless Hillary and McCain explain to people EXACTLY how they are going to legislate that all those big mean oil companies are going to be forced to pass the savings on to the consumer...its all just hot air and BS.

Is McCain asking people to do this? I'm not sure why you're only applying those standards to Clinton and Obama.

I'm honestly not sure if any gas tax holiday is a good idea, especially with tractor trailers. I'm not a highway specialist (so I may be wrong), but I suspect big rigs cause a disproportionate amount of wear-and-tear on our highways. With the abysmal shape much of our infrastructure is already in, I can't believe taking any amount of money out of our highway fund would be a good idea.

Get your facts straight, especially in a Top Post. Also, something you have missed entirely: a gas tax BREAK would help all consumers, not just the wealthy, as mr bush's tax breaks have & did. Passing such a break would also send a message to the oil companies that it's time to cut back on the excessive profits. And to answer your question below, not sure how any monies saved would go back specifically (the second time, that is, beyond the first-time savings in price paid at the pump) to the consumer in Clinton's or McCain's plans this time around but in the late 70s & early 80s, when the Excess Profits "fee" / tax was legislated first under Carter & then kept alive under a reluctant Ronald Reagan BY THE CONGRESS, the DOE sent large checks to every state's Energy Office or Energy Conservation Office. I remember seeing one for $ 11 million dollars at our state's office here, and that was from just one oil company - Amoco. The State Energy Offices distributed the monies as each state's legislature decided was equitable; in our state, non-profits, universities & colleges had to make proposals to the OEC office & compete for the funds. It was a great success, in most states that I'm aware of. In our state, the OEC office kept track of how many citizens were affected by the programs funded by the distributed monies & the numbers were significant.Again, not sure specifically how the current plans would be designed.

No matter which way you look at it your food prices, for that matter all your prices for goods that are distributed via semi are going to go up. To relieve the cost of gas on our distribution system only makes sense.

And the reality is that most truckers are not independants and don't pay for their own gas anyway, the company does.

Got a cite? And even if true prices of goods are going up because of transportation costs. If only some get a break it makes sense it should be the distributors of our foods and goods.

The break is at the pump. The federal govt. tells the vendors to stop charging it. Of course they could raise the prices anyways I guess.

Which facts are missing or wrong anyways?

Do you really think it is in the nature of the (play on words) consumptive party to ask people to conserve?

The only consumers that would be helped are the ones that work for oil companies. It's simple market economics: If supply is fixed and demand (at cost) outweighs supply, then the price will increase until demand equals supply.

Lowering the gas tax lowers the oil companies cost of providing gasoline to the consumer. How on earth will that do anything to lower gas prices?

You're much better off INCREASING the gas tax and then channeling that funding back to the consumer via a stimulus package. That way, the consumer is helped, but high (but not higher) gasoline prices force the necessary change in behavior while acting in affect as a windfall profit tax.

mithros:

The only consumers that would be helped are the ones that work for oil companies. It's simple market economics: If supply is fixed and demand (at cost) outweighs supply, then the price will increase until demand equals supply.

Lowering the gas tax lowers the oil companies cost of providing gasoline to the consumer. How on earth will that do anything to lower gas prices?

You're much better off INCREASING the gas tax and then channeling that funding back to the consumer via a stimulus package. That way, the consumer is helped, but high (but not higher) gasoline prices force the necessary change in behavior while acting in affect as a windfall profit tax.

AMEN

typical American consumer to cut back on their drivingm not even if gas goes to FIVE/gallon, retail; when are you pie in the sky liberals ever going to get that? Not everyone lives in areas served by public transportation and even if they did, not everyone (sad to say) is going to change their behavior. And not everyone can: delivery drivers, taxi drivers, contractors, landscapers, home inspectors, field salespeople, Realtors -- NONE of them can cut back on their driving. They wouldn't survive. Get a grip!

Let me guess, you both are "supporters" of the elitist, pie in the sky "Senator" McDreamy Obama, eh? Supply and demand has nothing to do with it anymore, and hasn't, probably since the advent of OPEC, helped along by spectacular corporate tax breaks to the TEXAS-based oil and gas companies. You guys are amazingly pack-based, aren't you? Who writes your stuff for you? moveon.org?

Here's a lesson for you dude.

In California in the 70's or 80's solar panels installed in residential areas were subsidized by the state to the tune of $7,000 (if I remember right). Guess what, the price of those installations on average went up? Answer: $7,000.

Take away federal taxes on gas it just eases the pressure off of oil companies to raise the prices a little more. I think taking taxes off of diesel gas could possibly work. Diesel is way over priced anyways and everybody knows it.