Fox's Cameron: Clinton's proposal to tax oil profits would be unpopular with "capitalists"
On the February 2 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, chief political correspondent Carl Cameron, during a report on speeches by Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) and Barack Obama (IL) at the Democratic National Committee winter meeting, said that Clinton's "pledge to take oil company profits and put them into an energy fund" is "an idea not likely to go over well with capitalists." Cameron provided no evidence for his claim that Clinton's plan would "not likely go over well" with those, beyond the oil companies themselves, who believe that a capitalist economy in general is superior to other economic structures -- a proposition that presumably none of the major presidential hopefuls would contest.
From the February 2 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
CAMERON: Clinton laid out a host of specifics on various issues, including a pledge to take oil company profits and put them into an energy fund, an idea not likely to go over well with capitalists. Obama has been criticized for lacking experience and substance when compared to Mrs. Clinton.
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
No, by all means...we can't tax oil company profits! They need another tax break! In fact, we should levy a tax on the middle class to fund oil company exploration in Alaska! Yeah, that's the ticket! Bless their hearts...$40 billion doesn't buy what it used to.
The profits are taxed at the going corporate tax rate. If we are looking at excess profits, do we look at them in terms of $ or % of sales. As a % of sales, there are a lot of companies that have larger profit margins than Exxon-Mobile. Should there be a "windfall" profits tax on them also. I think it would be better to leave the $ in the private sector with some method of making them invest in renewables, alternatives, etc. The private sector would have a reason to solve the problem at minimal cost, whereas, if the profits go to the government to be disbursed (as grants, etc), where would the incentive to solve the problem quickly and efficiently be? After all, once the problems are solved, the grants go away, which provides, in a way, an incentive to never completely solve the problem.
Exactly. Mrs. Clinton's statement about the evil oil companies caters to the same people who want to her say she is against crime.
"Evil oil companies?" Did she say that?
No, I did.
Why do you think they are evil?
I don't. It was sarcasm - as many cannot use the phrase "oil companies" without the adjective "evil" included.
As a % of sales, there are a lot of companies that have larger profit margins than Exxon-Mobile.
True. However, oil companies probably have a logical nexus to an energy fund that a company like, say, Starbuck's wouldn't have.
uhh hmm....the act of government taking profits that a company makes and redistrubuting them...socialism anyone?
yes, indeed...for the well-being of AMERICA and its PEOPLE!!!! PEOPLE OVER PROFITS!!!!
In that case every single government in the history of the world was socialist, because they've all taxed.
umm correct me if im wrong but govt taxes are on overall income and not net profit correct? there is a big difference
Big difference.
You're correct about income taxes. But really, what's the difference?
How about the Capital Gains Tax? Isn't that a tax on profit?
At least the capital gains tax rate is specified. Since she didn't say exactly how much of the oil profits she wants, I guess she will take whatever she feels like?
That's a good point, Tommy. In fact, I'm sure that a bill with absolutely no specifics will easily pass the Senate and House, and be signed into law.
Tommy, please...this is beneath you. She can only "take" what Congress specifies through legislation. But you know that.
Beneath me? I only said what she said, where are her specifics? I would like to hear them. Until then, my assumption of her unclear position waits her clarification.
What did she say, specifically?
She said she wanted to take oil company profits............no specifics. So, that could mean a little or all them? No clue.
I haven't been able to find any news item that mentions this proposal, have you?
Here's an article from the L.A. Times that might be about this plan, although it refers to revoking tax breaks and subsidies that the oil companies were treated to under the recent reign of their buddies the Republicks. Has a different ring than "taking their profits."
Yes, but you have to understand that taking a tax break away from a Republic is by definition a tax increase. And tax increases are bad for the economy and make the baby Jesus cry.
Jesus would have loved the oil companies. He would have loved capitalism in general, in fact. I've been re-reading the Gospels lately and I just can't get over how they are all about the benefits of laissez-faire capitalism and the message that greed is good.
Who defines greed? You? The government? Yea let's let the government define things like greed, gay rights, and privacy rights in general. That will get us really far.
From your statement on privacy rights and the role of government authority in general, I assume you are utterly in opposition to the ever broadening scope of executive power exercised by the current Administration. Right? If so, I also assume you were involved in protest or were at least proactive in attempts to curb the Constitutional transgressions committed by the Neocons. Right?
There is no letting the government do anything in a representative democracy.
Get involved with your government. Change it with your voice.
Government is there for us, it is there by us, it is there of us. Will you lead our leaders? Or is it easier simply to blame and complain instead of shouldering the awesome responsibility of being a citizen of this great republic?
But Hillary's "ring" said exactly "taking those profits........"
Indeed it did. I never said otherwise.
Good. Because nobody would want to leave the false impression that she was talking about taking back tax breaks. She wants their profits.
The L.A. Times story is about a bill that revokes tax breaks and subsidies. That was the closest thing I could find in the media that MIGHT have been about what Hillary was talking about. Note that I even said "might."
Anyway, the tax breaks and subsidies would have generated profits. To-may-to, to-mah-to.
Revoking company's tax breaks MIGHT be To-may-to. But taking a company's profits outright is definitely To-mah-to.
Correct me if I'm wrong Sparky, but won't revoking tax breaks cut into the oil companies' profits? I'm just sayin...
There was nothing in Hillary's statement about revoking tax breaks.
Oh............(clink clink)......is that the sound of moving goal posts?
(read that somewhere and thought it's perfect here)
Goal posts? Show me where I was taking a stand one way or the other.. all I said is that there were no news stories on the proposal, which there aren't - Rusty's link was to a House bill that already passed.
I am not even sure what you take such exception to.
If you want Hillary's direct quotes from her own mouth, with no mention of tax breaks, go to youtube.com and it's there. To soften her statement by bringing up revocation of tax breaks, when their mention is nonexistant and irrelevant, is shifting the argument - or moving the goal posts.
It seems relevant to look at what the House has already passed, since it is so similar to what she was talking about. I mean, do you think she is not talking about revoking tax breaks, but rather leaving them in place and imposing new taxes? That certainly could be her plan, though it seems like it would be harder to get through politically than just revoking tax breaks and setting up a fund, as the House has done.
Even if so, exactly how would it be different from revoking tax breaks?
I don't read politician's minds. Her comments did not reference tax breaks in any way, yet you continue to bring them up? You want to discuss oil company's tax breaks but that is not the topic of this thread.
The topic of this thread is actually what Cameron said, not what Clinton said. I'm trying to get what you are saying.
The thread is about Hillary and what she said. If she hadn't said it, Cameron's comment would be unnecessary
But what are you saying? Are you saying that she should have been more precise, that she shouldn't tax the oil companies, that captalists shouldn't be taxed, or what?
Val, This circular argument is ridiculous. The topic, nor her comments were about tax breaks, yet you continue to want me to engage that topic as some relevancy to what she said.........AND IT IS NOT.
She said she wants to take oil company profits, that's it, that's what she said.......now you can assume or suppose all you want what she MEANT, but there is no purpose in it on this thread.
I'm not making any sort of argument, circular or other-shaped. I'm just trying - and failing - to understand your objection. Is it that she was vague (does she want to "take" all profits? 50%? 33.3%?). Is it that she wants to "take" profits at all?
I would prefer she be specific and detail her position when she advocates "taking" any company's profits, without any qualifier.
Got it.
Silly argument. Where will the money come from to compensate for the loss of the tax breaks? I run my own company and I know it would come straight out of profits. Maybe the oil companies have fairy dust and can produce the money from someplace else to pay for the loss of tax breaks. I don't know, but as far as I am concerned from my own experience, saying it is coming from profits is just a simplification of the argument. Apparently not simple enough, though.
Val,
It was her comments to the DNC - it's on youtube.com, under Hillary on oil profits. It's all there.
"It's all there"
-----
Except for the part about the "evil oil companies" which was the only thing you tried to attribute to her.
Read my answer again. I said that was my word. What about that confused you?
Not exactly what do you think all those deduction are?
PhonyKernel, that's called taxation. Without it, no nation can survive. That is, unless you have some magic formula by which our government can bomb brown people without tax money. I'm sure the Pentagon would love to hear it.
hey nerzog i want to take half of your paycheck next week and give it to an illegal alien because he cant work here. that's fine with you right?
Aaa-ooooo-gahhh!
Major troll alert!
Major troll alert!
Aaa-ooooo-gahhh!
col clink, button pushing troll, no content
Nice StrawMan, Colonel Soupcan! Here, I'll make you a deal...when my income reaches 40 Billion, I'll gladly give the government half of it. How's that?
<> By the way, did Hillary propose taking half of the oil company's income? I must have missed that report. Please provide a link.Colonel Soupcan?
Mmmm Mmmm Good!
Mmmm Mmmm Good!
That's what the kernel's new nick name is
Mmmm Mmmm Good!
I don't even think that rose to the level of a straw man argument... that was just utterly random nonsense. Sometimes it seems like the Kernel just slaps the keyboard to hear the nice clicky sounds.
hey nerzog i want to take half of your paycheck next week and give it to an illegal alien because he cant work here. that's fine with you right? - Kernel
I hate to break this to you, Kernel, but if enough congressmen and senators, plus the president, wanted to do that, they could. Perhaps you do not care for our American form of government?
OK, kernal soupy....you need to GAG (get a grip..) Let's suppose for a moment that I found some oil under your house, I go to your government and ask for leases to get the oil out, sell it overseas at ridiculous profits, and when you and your family start to feel the economic pinch, I just take the 'SCREW YOU' approach and raise prices...and if you for ONE SECOND think that you are going to get some of my profits so you can live a nice life in your home, I will pay law makers to pass laws so you get NOTHIUNG!! And if spring an oil leak in your house, I will have your neighborhood pay to clean it up, including you, and I will pay nothing...And if I spill enough oil to submerge your house for decades where nothing can grow, I will not pay ONE RED CENT because I will file appeal after appeal after appeal in your courts...If you cannot see the injusttice in all this, then you are part of the problem...
So then the corporate tax is socialism but income tax is ok? You have got to be kidding.
uhh hmm....the act of government taking profits that a company makes and redistrubuting them...socialism anyone?
- col.roycampbell / Monday February 5, 2007 02:42:36 PM EST
When the government redistributes monies to rich corporations and to rich people, the Republicans call it an "economic stimulus package". But if someone wants to tax a rich corporation, they cry "socialism" and "welfare". Pretty funny stuff.
FYI, the government's job description is to TAKE IN MONIES AND REDISTRIBUTE THEM. They do it all the time. Take some from these people, give it to those people. I know. Just make sure the "people" are already wealthy. We can't have some shiftless working mother getting a "handout" from the government. It'll encourage her to work only 2 jobs instead of 3.
I'm all for the end to welfare, so let's start with welfare (i.e., tax breaks) for the rich and work our way down.
An amusing side note; I often defend welfare by saying that the money goes right back into the economy, because poor people immediately spend it whatever they get. Well, some talking head was defendig all the money wasted in Iraq the same way; essentially pointing out that it's being funneled back into our economy through defense contractors. I guess I can't argue with the logic!
It would be true if defense contractors SPENT EVERYTHING THEY EARN. They don't. Since 2000, corporate cash reserves have climbed 20%. That's a lot of money stagnating, unless you're the CEO. Then it's a reasonable measure to ensure they can afford your enormous golden parachute when you quit after the company loses money for ten straight quarters. And that's where our trickle down dollars go: sideways, from one wealthy entity to another.
Yes, Camerlooney, Exxon NEEDS $45 BILLION in profits next year...otherwise capitalism will FAIL and the COMMUNISTS will take over!! But, he brings up a real point...the oil companies will lobby FOREVER not to get a new tax....The state of Alaska got a new tax voted in, but it caps profits at a fixed percentage rate for 50 years, with no provisions for inflation, etc...basically, we got screwed...
Carl's a good little soldier.
I mean, when the head of the empire that employs you admits things like this: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/04/rupert-murdoch-admits-manipulating-the-mediasurprisesurprise/ , what's a guy to do?
Carl is just following orders (where've we heard that before?) and, while he's a huge, puss-filled sore on the face of journalism, at least you can't say he's inconsistent.
I realize many of the threads posted here are just to take a swipe at the latest demon from Fox, in this case it's Cameron - but what does this have to do with anything related to this particular topic?
Either you don't listen to the drivel pouring from Carl on a daily basis (I do), you can't tell the difference between journalism and propaganda, or both.
I wouldn't mind the oil companies keeping all of there profit as long as they forfeit every underhanded tax break and bias law rled in their favor that allows them screw everyone without consequence.
I would be interested if there was an explanation, other than raw greed, for the oil companies' record profits this past year. This is a genuine question, as energy industry issues are not something I know much about.
Did they produce a new product, introduce new efficiencies, or do anything productive to increase their profits? Or did they just jack up the price and keep it high for as long as possible?
The president of Exxon, Lee Raymond, was asked by a reporter if profits were too high. He looked at the reporter and said, " where were you guys last time we had a loss year? I don't remember a reporter even being in the room."
That, my friends is the story. The oil business, as well as others, is a high-risk business (100 million to drill a hole is not uncommon, with no guarantees). If there is not a CHANCE to make a huge return, capital will flow elsewhere (includes our pension fund monies--not just money from RICH investors).
But the press forgets to cover the story when an oil company has an OBSCENE loss, which happens frequently enough.
Yes, it happened all the time...when it was a company run by Bush.
That's what I understand.
LEMOC.....speaking of OBSCENE....did you know the ceo of Exxon made, from 1998-2005, 166,600 dollars? A DAY!!! Let me repeat that...ONE-HUNDRED, SIXTY-SIX THOUSAND, SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS A DAY FOR SEVEN YEARS...they need nothing, my good friend...
That was a result of his employment agreement, which involves the same risk/reward aspects of business in general. Companies compete by offering those kinds of incentives to top talent. Stockholders (includes us, through our pension funds) CAN prohibit the Board of Directors from offering such incentives (there is a miriad of these incentive plans), which don't always pan out for the officer in question.
But remember, it is competitive, and you want your money invested where it returns the most to you, and therefore a President or CEO who produced the most for an enterprise is the one you want running YOURS. Therefore the big incentives offered.
We have charged our pension fund managers with just that responsibility (invest for the best return), so WE are just as much a party to the big CEO rewards as anybody else. If we think it's wrong, we have to put pressure on the Board to change things.
That's true in an "imagine a frictionless universe," Econ 101-type way, but practically speaking your average worker has no control over the companies in which his pension funds are invested.
Stockholders have found that they have power they have not used. CSEA (California State Employees), for instance, is making its voice heard in major ways.
Just for trivia's sake: the largest stockholder in Exxon's history is College Retirement Equities (teachers' retirement fund). Caveat: they may have been beat out by sombody else by now.
That's interesting. So is there an explanation, other than raw greed, for the oil companies' record profits this past year?
"Raw greed" is a value judgement. Return to capital may or may not be excellent; I haven't checked. Assuming it's excellent, our pension fund managers have bought the stock for us. That's their job, and if our statements at the end of the year show they have not performed up to par, we replace THEM with new management.
Exxon will pay huge corporate tax, commensurate with huge profit. If they don't invest their after-tax earnings in a timely manner, they will also get hit with a retained earnings tax. Best that we encourage investment of that money to alternatives, maybe?
In any case, I don't think that mere happenstance (markets that turn our way) can be called "raw greed" any more than the collection of TENS OF BILLIONS in unanticipated tax revenue (going on right now because corporate and high- earner income is higher than government thought it would be) can be called "raw greed" on the part of we the taxpayers and taxrecipients of these United States.
Discard the "raw greed" clause if it's troubling to you; it was intended to be provocative, but not to the exclusion of getting a genuine answer to a genuine question.
Why did ExxonMobil earn record-breaking profits this year and last?
World oil markets turned their way, primarily.
"Turned their way" how? I mean, clearly the price of oil went up and so price to consumers went up, but why would that mean they make more profit, why isn't it just a pass-through, or roughly so?
As producers and marketers, they had production costs that stayed static while the world market rose, yielding them uncommonly good margins. Hence the huge profit.
Again, I don't really understand the energy industry. My impression is that they purchase a raw material (crude oil), transport and refine it, and deliver it to market. I guess I don't understand why they made so much more profit just because the price of the raw material increased.
I'm gonna call BS on that. You're argument, while perhaps technically true, is like saying that casinos "run a huge risk" because occasionally some jerk leaves with fifty bucks in his pocket. The bottom line is that the oil business is hugely profitable, with or without the "risks" of dry holes. They aren't in it for the RISK. They're in it for the GARANTEED MONEY.
Direct your pension fund manager to invest ONLY in oil companies, then. Better yet, tell him to invest your money only in oil exploration companies.
This is a test of whether you really believe these companies have a guaranteed profit.
Your fund manager would quit and go to work for somebody else, rather than to expose you to such risk.
That is a specious argument. Case in point, direct your pension fund manager to invest in any homogeneous realm and you'll be advised to diversify.
Even W. understands that much. His failed 2004 proposal of privatized social security featured a, what was the phrase, 'conservative mix of investments.'
Find an investment with a GUARANTEED killer return, and put all your bets on it. If it's guaranteed, how are you going to go wrong? And why would you take RISK with any other investment.
Just following the man's line of reasoning. Does he make sense?
"But the press forgets to cover the story when an oil company has an OBSCENE loss, which happens frequently enough."
How frequently? When? How much was lost? Do Exxon's loss years so offset their profit years that it even makes sense to talk of risk on their part.? In fact Exxon has a despicable history of unethical , illegal, and anti-competitive business practices:
In 2003 petroleum marketers won a $1.4 billion judgement in federal court against ExxonMobil for anticompetitive practices.
Investigative reporting by Forbes Magazine raised questions about ExxonMobil's dealings with the leaders of oil-rich nations. ExxonMobil controls concessions covering 11 million acres (44,500 km²) off the coast of Angola that hold an estimated 7.5 billion barrels (1.2 km³) of crude. Forbes alleged that "ExxonMobil handed hundreds of millions of dollars to the corrupt regime of President José Eduardo dos Santos in the late 1990s.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/free_forbes/2003/0428/084.html
In 2003, the Office of Foreign Assets Control reported that ExxonMobil engaged in illegal trade with Sudan and along with dozens of other companies settled with the United States government for $50,000.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/14/enemy.trading/index.html
In March 2003, James Giffen of the Mercator Corporation was indicted, accused of bribing President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan with $78 million on behalf of ExxonMobil's effort to win a 25 percent share of the Tengiz oilfield, the third largest in the world. On April 2, 2003, former-Mobil executive J. Bryan Williams was indicted on tax charges relating to this same transaction. The case will be the largest under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
http://www.fcpaenforcement.com/documents/document_detail.asp?ID=1388&PAGE=2
ExxonMobil is the target of human rights activists for actions taken by the corporation in the Indonesian territory of Aceh. In June 2001 a lawsuit against ExxonMobil was filed in the Federal District Court of the District of Columbia under the Alien Tort Claims Act. The suit alleges that the ExxonMobil knowingly assisted human rights violations, including torture, murder and rape, by employing and providing material support to Indonesian military forces, who committed the alleged offenses during civil unrest in Aceh. Human rights complaints involving ExxonMobil's relationship with the Indonesian military first arose in 1992; the company denies these accusations and has filed a motion to dismiss the suit, which as of 2006 is still pending.
http://www.laborrights.org/projects/corporate/exxon/
And of course there is Exxon Valdez not to mention their co-ordinated disinformation campaign on Global Warming.
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
If any entity is suffering obscene losses at the hands of oil it is the public. Credit Wikipedia for a number of the items entered above.
An excellent and diligent observation, and thank you for the sources.
Exxon is subject to the legal process in all these cases. Fortunately, we HAVE a process, which is lacking in some places, and that encourages under-the-table business practices, because it's the only process there is in some places. Not making excuses for Exxon, and if or when found guilty, they'll have to pay the toll.
Going back to Teddy Roosevelt and trust-busting (a courageous man, having been born to priviledge), there are always concerns re: an enterprise getting so big that it restricts competition, acts above the law, etc. Divestiture discussion is recurrent, and for good reason. Nobody is above the law; if we think they're so big that they can manipulate markets, we can do something about it--there is plenty of law to accomplish it, including not accepting bids on leases from parties who are in violation of (any # of ) laws.
As for myself, as far as retail goes, I'll always gas up at the little guy's pump instead of a major, as long as the price is in the ballpark.
Please clarify this statement;
"Fortunately, we HAVE a process, which is lacking in some places, and that encourages under-the-table business practices, because it's the only process there is in some places."
How is it fortunate for us to have process that encourages under-the -table business practices? I am more than likely misreading something but such statements as the one above smacks of deregulation dogma.
Sorry for the poor phrasing. What I was referring to is that we are a democratic nation with laws and a legal process (laborious tho' it may be). In some other countries, corrupt business practices are invited by the lack of accoutability (virtual, if not nominal, dictatorships and monarchys, other countries with a ruling elite such as Russia) and rampant corruptibility of whoever's in charge.
In some of those, the only way to do any business is to find out who to pay and hope he is, in fact, the right guy. Happened to some friends of mine on the Kamchatka Peninsula.
Re: new technologies and efficiencies, any company that doesn't stay current with both will be trampled by their competition, as regularly happens.
Yes, my Econ textbook says that as well. But is there an explanation, other than raw greed, for the oil companies' record profits this past year?
Please see my post several posts back. Thanks for considering.
Val, I didn't get that from a book. I got it from getting trampled from time to time.
Where's Tommy and the Kernel go?
Is this the right room for an argument?
Argument is an intellectual process. You're more likely to encounter contradiction, which is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes. It's not unlike taking hit-on-the-head lessons.
No it isn't.
Sorry, the five minutes is up.
The Argument--Courtesy of Monty Python
Thanks Rusty--Kills me every time.
Actually, parroting every other post on a website dominated by like thinkers is a lazy and not very challenging process. But it always make you think you are on the right track.....it's sort of the "fingers-in-the-ear-lalalalalalalala"
"Actually, parroting every other post on a website dominated by like thinkers is a lazy and not very challenging process."
-----
Whereas making nothing but trollish statements is the height of intellectualism and creativity.
On Bizarro World, maybe. Not on this one.I could not agree more.
I'm with you on this, Tommy. The problem is the knee-jerk reactionism. by the way, I've been missing your voice on some of the other posts today.
"a proposition that presumably none of the major presidential hopefuls would contest."
Really? Then why does Hillary Clinton want to tax oil company profits and redistribute the wealth? Isn't wealth distribution one of the main aspects of socialism? What about universal health care? Isn't government run health care another key aspect of socialism? In what ways could Hillary Clinton actually be considered a capitalist? She wants to punish private companies that make big profits and redistribute the wealth. That sounds like a position that Hugo Chavez would be proud of. In reality, there isn't a whole lot of difference between a liberal Democrat and a socialist.
I see your point, Rusty.
Wealth distribution? You mean like George W. Bush is taking our wealth (well, our grandchildren's wealth) and distributing it to war contractors?
Didn't you mean to say how Bush is borrowing money to try to stabalize a country that could provide more stability in the middle east and become a key ally in the War on Terror?
No, I meant to say that Bush is taking my wealth and redistributing it to Halliburton, Bechtel, etc., despite my clearly expressed intent that he not do so.
Why didn't Bush run on the Socialist ticket?
Actually, Bush has cut taxes in spite of the war. He's never raised taxes and taken more of your money. Bush's tax cuts have helped the economy grow, and there is now more revenue flowing into the government than before the tax cuts. The tax cuts are working. They create more revenue.
You're right. He SPENT ALL THE MONEY THAT WE HAD SAVED. He wasted my money, my parents money, and YOUR money.
Sorry, we didn't have any saved. If so, where was it?
Taxing employer provided healthcare plans wasn't a new tax? Tax cuts aren't generating revenue as much as underfunding vital programs like the public education system, Pell grants, the Veterans Administration etc. are creating a cost offset.
This is religious dogma. Please show some evidence that revenues are increasing.
Congressional Budget Office. New York Times going back to 07/09/2006 and continuing to present. CBO figures bear it out (lower deficit than anticipated due to higher tax revenue) in 2005 also.
We still shouldn't like a deficit in the hundreds of billions, though.
But a good Keynesian would say "Keep it in the ____% range of GDP, and it's OK".
So then not being quite as far in debt as we thought we were going to be is the same as making money? The fact that the tax cuts didnt put us a deep i a hole as we expected means they paid for themselves? Please tell me that was a joke
John Kennedy thought tax cuts were productive, and arguably proved it.
Tax cuts do NOT create more revenue, they do not even pay for themselves. Bush's own economic adviser admitted this. You can repeat that tired old propaganda parrot talking point till the crows turn white, it wont make it true
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/14/AR2006051400806.html
choose N. Gregory Mankiw of Harvard, a proponent of tax cuts who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers in the Bush White House. Mankiw is a top-notch economist hired by Bush and Cheney to advise them. And last year he published a paper on how far tax cuts pay for themselves, reporting enthusiastically that this self-financing effect is "surprisingly large."
How large, exactly? Mankiw reckons that over the long run (the long run being generous to his argument), cuts on capital taxes generate enough extra growth to pay for half of the lost revenue. Hello, Mr. President, that means that the other half of the lost revenue translates into bigger deficits. Mankiw also calculates that the comparable figure for cuts in taxes on wages is 17 percent. Yes, Mr. President, that means every $1 trillion in tax cuts is going to add $830 billion to the national debt.
Not attempting to negate your thesis, but if tax cuts NEVER produce more revenue (that may be misquoting you), then what would be the CONVERSE of that statement?
Actually, Bush has cut taxes in spite of the war.
So what? My tax dollars AREN'T being redistributed to Halliburton? Are you saying they're not getting paid?
Of course they are. With MY wealth. My wealth is being redistributed to Halliburton against my will.
The point is (as some seem to have missed) that any taxation can be characterized as "redistribution of wealth" if one is determined enough to make that cheap rhetoric work.
Thanks, RINO...I haven't heard the daily GOP talking points memo today. Freedom's on the march!
" Freedom's on the march!"
-----
March 2058, perhaps, when our great-grandchildren are still paying for the Iraquagmire.
Exxon record profits are due to company innovation = Corporate speak for find way to cut all employee benefits and force them onto their states health care program.
Please specify a source explaining that Exxon is doing that, if that is what you mean.
On what planet would Iraq ever become a "key ally in the war on terror?
And no fair answering "Planet Wingnut".
This is boring. Can we call up Freeper Central and get 'em to send somebody over here who has a coherent argument?
Might as well call up the Chicago Bears and ask them to send over a decent quarterback.
To stabalize a country? Hmm. One thing about brutal dictatorships they are stable. So it was already stable, if oppressive, then we invaded to rid Iraq of those nasty WMDs that littered Iraq like so many cigarette butts, because of the great danger of those....Ok so there were no WMDs but 9/11 we had to avenge 9/11...Ok so Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 but we had to stop them collaborating with al Queda, they were working with al Queda....Ok so they werent working with al Queda, give me a minute, democracy? No more than 80% of them want us to leave and we areng going anywhere give me a minute, yeah, STABILITY, thats the ticket our invasion was meant to bring stability to a nation whose stability was destroyed by our invasion. Do you guys get dizzy with these ludicrous arguments or is the Rube Goldberg version of a logical argument some kind of gift?
Rusty, it'll be a dead heat between war debt and the Social Security system we are bequeathing to our grandchildren.
At least SS might offer our grandchildren some benefit. But you agree that, as socialism goes, Bush's war is roughly on par with Social Security?
What is your argument? That the amount of money borrowed for this war will be equivalent to the shortfall in the SS trust fund? Do you have any figures supporting this assertion?
One would hope this war has a finite end. SS, on the other hand, has fewer procucers supporting an increasing number of recipients, and that line on the graph rises steadily as far as you can see. The only way it'll balance for our granchildren is higher taxes or lower payouts. It's basic arithmetic.
Both sides agree to that. The only real difference is in what is the best supposed remedy.
Well, you'd have to say that pension law, private savings provisions (401k,Keough, and the rest of them) have really been the answer, and hopefully will continue or improve. But for those not making enough to save, it doesn't work out so well.
OK. If you use the 75-year projection, the shortfall looks like $3.7 trillion, which I can accept as a reasonable estimate for the total cost of this war when all said and done.
Hope not, but considering ALTERNATIVE COSTS (cost imputed when considering expenditure of all the involved resources, including TIME, on alternatives), you can probably make a case.
That's even if it ends today (a trillion spent so far?).
War? Don't recall any declaration of war. The finite end of imperialism, however, is totalitarianism and/or bankruptcy.
Fox's Gibson is also trying to characterize this as Clinton wanting to take not some, but all of the oil companies' profits. That's pure sensationalism of the sort some here (ahem...Tommy) have previously agreed is misleading. Clinton's proposal, offered last Spring, is described in some detail here... http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=255988
If you want to argue the merits or weaknesses of the proposal, at least educate yourself as to the facts. Otherwise, you're just addign to the fog.
Hmmm... looks like Hillary's proposal calls for a temporary two-year fee on oil company profits that exceed a 2000-2004 profit baseline. Hardly the extortion some would have us believe.
Rusty, "temporary two year fee" sounds workable, but what if at the end of two years, the government sponsored researchers plead, "We are so close, with just another two years of increased funding, we could possibly make a breakthrough in alternative energy sources." We are so close, how could be drop the program now? Just two more years (maybe make that 4, 6, 8 or more). There was a temporary tax imposed over 100 years ago on telephone service to fund the Spanish American war. It finally was removed last year (Don't forget that line item on your tax return!). There is nothing so permanent as a "temporary" government program.
That is a fair point. The ideal solution would be to talk to our representatives in Congress and have them serve our will. Hold them accountable and all that jazz.
One solution to that would be to sunset that tax. I agree that, once in place, taxes and institutions are much more difficult to tear down. However, sunset provisions tend to reverse the situation.
Personally, that's the one part of Sen. Clinton's proposal that I view with reluctance. Singling out an industry for special taxation should require more than the public good as justification, but be based on some clear externality or abuse. Granted one may argue that the Iraq war is such an externality with respect the oil industry. However, the war is a matter of choice that we need not be bearing.
I support the rest of the Senator's proposal. Tax and royalty breaks should be ended, as they no longer serve any purpose as an incentive. Also, $50 billion - or even $100 billion - toward alternative development seems like a much better investment than another $245 billion - the amount requested by the Bush administration for Iraq for the next 2 years - to maintain our supply of oil.
I saw her giving the speech, and her phrasing--"I'm for taking those profits and..." was for calculated political effect; nobody's taking that literally. No reason for not calling her on it though. Gives her a chance to explain her actual position on it--fair enough.
OF SUBJECT, SOMEWHAT
I find it humorous and at the same time very annoying that that Obama's supposed lack of experience is suddenly such a bad thing, when 6 years ago another presidential candidate's COMPLETE lack of experience was seen as refreshing, a selling point.
And why was Obama's name thrown into this story in the first place? He has nothing to do with Clinton's statements.
Tommy, you are a noise-maker and water-muddier with legal training, are you not? We don't have to try equitable redistribution of the benfits of society. We can allow the magic unseen hand of Adam Smith to run the American Empire into the third-world hole Rome found itself in by the 4th century...nothing like greed and crony-capitalism to move human society towards a better tomorrow. We could tax the living hell out of oil and energy companies until they declare bankruptcy and you know what? The guys in the board rooms will still be multi millionaires/billionaires with veto power over your and my life.
Hold on, Laissez.
Your life will be "subject to the veto power of corporations", compared to where? And what did they veto for you today?
As for corporate boards, plenty of progressives occupy seats on corporate boards. Hillary sat on several, including Wal-Mart's, before she came to D.C.
This is the most accurate statement on this website.
There is no misinformation at all about this.
The Gov't doesn't make the money. The Gov't doesn't make the wealth.
Oil companies, Drug companies, and other large corporations, spend billions of dollars to extract the oil, develop the drugs, and perform other expenses.
When companies finally perform well, it is extortion to steal their profits.
That's the whole purpose of going into business in the first place.
Capitalist disagree w/ Hilary. Period. If you disagree w/ me, maybe that says something about your economic/political leanings.
Okay. Are you trying to tell us that drug companies, oil companies and other large corporations perform all of these things in the absence of public funding? Are you saying all of these things are done independent of publicly funded infrastructure?
An oversimplistic take on the issue. First of all if we are talking about wealth creation ALL wealth is created by working people. ALL WEALTH this is a basic tenet of economics. Second there is a lot of public cost, read taxpayer money that helps the corporations make their money. A whole lot of research and development for instance is done FOR drug comapanies by NIH, that is taxpayer grants to universities to do their research, Taxol was COMPLETELY reserached and developed by the NIH then GIVEN to Bristol Squibb Meyers to charge whatever they wanted off of it. Many drugs hit the market in just that way. There is also the public investment in the transportation system, the communication system, and educating their workers borne by society. Why do you conservatives always want a free lunch. What is wrong with asking them to kick back some of societies investment in helping them make profits?
Good reminder that it's ***-for-tat (will I get flagged for that?). What comes first, the chicken or the egg? The tax revenue you refer to has to be generated from commerce, so commerce needs to be incentivised, yadayada.
Going back to OUR beginnings as a country, startup capital was provided by governments AND private sources. Any semblance of civilization takes an agreed-upon (hopefully) tax resource, and it goes from there.
Contrary to what you say, LDoren, wealth would not be possible without government.
It would be impossible to accumulate the mind-bogglingly vast amounts of wealth that are accumulated today if not for the actions of the government in writing laws; for instance, the laws allowing for the creation of corporations. And the laws that protect the wealth they generate. And the laws that provide for the infrastructure they use to generate that wealth. And so on, and so on.
We, as citizens, are ultimately responsible for those laws (in theory, at least). Our legislators, acting on our behalf, create the legal structures that allow oil companies to amass vast wealth. It is entirely appropriate that we demand in return some of the wealth that we have enabled.
AND...we do get it, in corporate tax, retained earnings tax if the remaining profit isn't put to work in certain ways, within a certain amount of time.
Don't you think that statement is accurate? People don't like being taxed and people that run oil companies are capitalists. People need to realize that unless you own capital you are not a capitalist. Just because you subscribe to the economic philosophy of capitalism doesn't make you a capitalist.
Oh, okay. Got it.
It's just like religion.
One can have faith in the Christ, however one is not a Christian until one owns a Bible.
Every time I read the title (Clinton's proposal to tax oil profits would be unpopular with "capitalists"), I keep visualizing this guy.
so true - everyone knows that capitalists don't like to pay their fair share, unless they do so with someone else's money
Please explain how anyone on this site is not a capitalist. Start with yourself.
Tell me you have no savings (no capital), no assets (no capital), you want no return on any investment, that you never have made gain from your capital, and that you never will accept any. This includes your home, which if you have lived in it for two years or more, you may keep the gain on sale tax-free (250k if single, 500k if married).