InsightMag guest commentator: Clinton is "red as in Lenin"
In a February 21 guest commentary for the website InsightMag.com, Joseph Beaudoin, described by the website as an "author and former investment banker," claimed that during her February 1 speech at the Democratic National Committee's Winter Meeting, "[Sen.] Hillary Rodham Clinton [D-NY] declared that her energy policy rests on the nationalization of America's oil companies." Beaudoin claimed Clinton's remarks were not "[t]houghtless words taken out of context" and asserted her comments to be Clinton "finally showing her true color ... red as in Lenin. ... Red as in if you are successful I will confiscate your property and, because I know how to utilize it better than you do, society will be better off. Red as in communism." Beaudoin's characterization of Clinton's energy policy echoes that of Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron, who said her policy would be unpopular with "capitalists."
In fact, in her February 1 remarks, Clinton proposed "to take" the oil industry's record profits and "put them into a Strategic Energy Fund that will begin to fund alternative, smart energy ... that will begin to actually move us towards the direction of [energy] independence." In a May 23, 2006, speech at the National Press Club, Clinton unveiled a plan that she said would "reduc[e] our dependence on foreign oil by at least 50 percent by 2025." A press release accompanying her speech stated that her proposal provides for levying a "temporary fee" upon oil company "profits that exceed a 2000-2004 profit baseline." In her May 2006 speech, Clinton proposed instituting this tax "over the next two years" on oil companies that "reap huge benefits from unexpectedly high energy prices." According to the press release, the companies would "be required to pay a portion of their profits into the strategic energy fund," which would invest in alternative energies. The press release also stated that this "temporary fee," combined with "eliminat[ing] oil company tax breaks" and "ensur[ing] that oil companies pay their fair share of royalties for drilling on public lands," would "raise more than $50 billion to fund research, development and deployment of energy technologies that will reduce America's oil dependence and greenhouse gas emissions."
As Media Matters for America has previously noted, while reporting on Clinton's DNC speech on the February 2 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron 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.
InsightMag.com is the successor to Insight on the News, a biweekly magazine published until April 2004 by News World Communications, the company controlled by Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church that also owns The Washington Times and the wire service United Press International. The website describes itself as a "weekly Internet news magazine."
From Beaudoin's February 21 guest commentary on InsightMag.com:
At the 2007 Democratic National Committee Winter Meeting in early February, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton declared that her energy policy rests on the nationalization of America's oil companies. In her own words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1PfE9K8j0g):
"The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and put them into an alternative energy fund [sic: Strategic Energy Fund] that will begin to fund alternative smart energy alternatives that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence."
Thoughtless words taken out of context, these are not. That was a prepared speech to the DNC. And, to make matters worse, the Democrats in attendance heartily applauded in a way reminiscent of Lenin's long-dead "useful idiots."
The inventor of the "vast right wing conspiracy" is finally showing her true color. And it is red. Not red as in "red states" but red as in Lenin. Red as in if you are successful I will confiscate your property and, because I know how to utilize it better than you do, society will be better off. Red as in communism.
From Clinton's February 1 speech before the Democratic National Committee:
CLINTON: The same is true of energy independence. The Democrats know what needs to be done. Again, we're working to try to push this agenda forward. The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits, and I want to put them into a Strategic Energy Fund that will begin to fund alternative, smart energy; alternatives and technologies that will begin to actually move us towards the direction of independence. And, I have to tell you, I am not running for president to put band-aids on our problems. I am running to ensure that we actually address them and meet them and get results here in our country, because we have to prove to ourselves, as well as the rest of the world, that we're still the most creative, the most innovative, most effective nation in the history of the world.
I think she's actually well-read, unlike InsightMag.
You are misinformed. InsightMag is well read and its contributors include:
I don't know who this Beaudoin is, but he is in good company as far as conservative writers are concerned. It would be much better if, instead of insults, you would produce thoughts.
The man is a guest commentator on an internet magazine with an opinion. Some agree, some disagree. It is not misinformation, but an opinion. Those who disagree may say it's framed in an inflammatory tone, those that agree say her comments warranted such a reference.
Her comments and this commentary are good for discussion and debate in an important issue.
Well actually Tommy the misinformation presented here is very simple.
The claim that Hillary proposed a plan to "nationalize" (i.e. take it out of public hands and make it a government entity.) the oil industry.
No such plan was introduced.
And as far as opinion pieces. Your saying we should not point out missinformaiton in these because they are opinion? Than why were all those conservatives angery at the Dixi Chicks? They were just stating thier opinions.
Actually, Tommy, Clinton's words were taken out of context, the context being the details of the full proposal put forth last May and provided in a press release at the time of the recent speech. You can look up the details on Clinton's website, as I don't feel like doing it again. We've been around this tree once already.
Press release? It was Clinton's own words from the speech earlier this month.
When a politician makes a speech there is usually a press release so scribes don't have to write down every word they say. But the fact here seems to be the source of this opinion piece in question, is not rooted in the facts. Ergo the opinion isn't worth much.
Clinton's speech this month was accompanied with nothing. The press release was for the speech 9 months ago. Her "temporary fee", or tax, on a certain level of profits may have been press released last May, but it was not referenced in the speech this month. She indicated "those profits", not a percentage or any other such specifics.
Either way, it's a tax or a fee or whatever that will ultimately be passed on to the consumer in higher prices. Those naive enough to think otherwise are fooling themselves.
I have pointed this out before, but since the lesson is again lost, here it goes: giving tax breaks to wealthy oil companies who might subsequently raise their prices is a call for subsidizing the cost of oil and gas, meaning you support socializing the cost of gasoline for cars. Fine. But then why is subsidizing housing and food for the poor a middle class conservative anathema? Simple. Because the poor don't typically drive cars. So to hell with them. Socializing the cost on non-essentials like a car, OK in conservative circles. But food and house, both essentials, sorry, I'm not onboard with that.
The hypocrisy of Republican democracy.
Simple. Fair taxation on all citizens and companies is perfectly acceptable. However, taking from those that pay taxes and giving that money to those that have not earned it is a far different idea completely. Your two scenarios are apples and oranges. One earns money and is subsequently taxed, the other does not and is given other people's money, unearned.
I suppose they worked so much harder to EARN their money by raising gas prices an additional 30%.
I would agree with you if you actually understood what the word EARNED means. Workers earn money. Investors take a risk with money they received (interest/dividends) from investing in other places with money that they received (interest/dividends) from investing in other places, etc.
Your argument boils down to this: Since they have money, we should make certain they have more money.
Meanwhile, you advocate that the people who are actually earning it for the rich should pay their fair share of taxes, and the money that the rich EARN shouldn't be taxed at a higher rate.
Should the rich should pay less for their goods and services too? I know you don't like it, but I'm all for redistribution. After all, the poor were the ones who were extorted out of their income and wages to make others rich in the first place.
tommy forgets all about the fact that much of that oil comes from leases on public land and waters. our land. and he'll say they do all the work. sure, but they write off any losses against profit. the bush administration is nothing but a corporate front for big business.
"they write off any losses against profit". Losses are losses, profit is profit.
Have you been in business for quite awhile now? And do you not call a loss a loss? I don't think even Sanders (S-Vermont) would say that a loss is anything but a loss.
What school of accounting are you from?
losses as in drilling a dry hole, genius. hey, how's the search for those tree ring links coming? the ones you went to search for and never came back.
Let me get this straight: you don't want drilling to be an EXPENSE, in your world of accounting?
Still looking for the tree ring study I referred to. From time to time, I have to make a living.
But just so I don't misunderstand you--drilling is not expensable (a cost of operation, in a given fiscal or calendar year)?
if you will look at my original post, i was replying to tommy's contention about how hard all these poor little oil companies work to earn their money. i pointed out that they are using what is after all a public resource, and that for the major companies there is really no risk. if they come up dry in one place, they write it off and move to the next. and the tree ring study was on last week's global warming thread. you ran your mouth about how your studies disproved man made global warming and then you didn't back it up.
Re: tree ring studies, I merely said that they indicate that more severe and variable weather is the norm, rather than the exception, over the long haul. I didn't attack your religious beliefs.
Re: your sophomoric misconception of what a WRITEOFF is, you are as confused as most . A writeoff is merely an expense, not a tax credit. Or do you even know what a TAX CREDIT is? I think not.
Now go study.
Yes, press release. Are you just interested in making what you can out of the speech or in understanding the reality of the complete proposal?
No, I am taking her speech this month, no press release here.....at her word. You want to muddy it up by softening it or attach some caveat that isn't there?, fine. Her words stand on their own.
So you sat through an entire speech by Hillary? Did she come to your town? Did you watch it somewhere? Give me a break. This opinion piece is still not rooted in fact. Anyone who would swallow that her plan is communist or even close has to be the naive one. That's the point here. This guy is spouting off and calling her communist when he doesn't have a grasp on the facts.
The comminist reference is hyperbole, admittedly - but her specific comments on taking company's profits should have been carefully thought out by her before she made them. She is smart enough to know that she is only giving ammunition to her critics; don't go whining now and saying she was taken out of context, it's her fault, ultimately.
And isn't it more likely she simply mispoke at this particular time this wing nut seized on the idea she wanted to take all the profits of a company? By this logic, I could write an opinion piece that George Bush doesn't want an all volunteer army, has delivered us from peace and prosperity to live in chaos and wants to put food on your family. The whole opinion piece is based on a comment that was indeed taken out of context. I'm no fan of Hillary but I can tell when someone is operating from a false premise.
My mistake...you are correct that the press release was not re-released recently. Not surprising though, since the facts of her plan were already known.
As for the rest of your comments, since when are facts mud? You've stated before that the meaning of Clinton's comments are debatable. In support of one interpretation, you have the details of the plan. On the other side, you have conjecture. Hmmm...sure seems simple enough.
As I said, she should have been more specific. Being vague and offering up such remarks that are open to interpretation only invite commentaries such as this Insight piece.
So blame the victim for the hit piece. There you go Tommy.
Then the "victim" should choose her words more carefully. She was in complete control of her words and speech, she was no victim of anything.
Whatever Tommy.
Every politician makes split-second decisions as the words fall from their lips--add a word, omit a word or phrase, etc. They calculate, as they speak, the NET gain or loss of votes by their wordsmithing--who will like their wording in a literal sense, who will parse and interpret, and who will use the wording against them. She gained more votes from those who like the sound of "I'd take those profits" than she lost from those who already have their minds made up against a Hill presidency.
Assuming she meant what she said at this particular time. This is the point of the post here at MMfA. No Democrat is suggesting such a thing, yet here comes a right wing crack pot who's willing to capitalize on a single statement. No one is seriously discussing nationalizing the oil industry. There is a perpetuation of stereotyping Democrats or liberals as being socialist or communist when neither is true.
Agreed, and a lazy exercise, as in the various labels for "THE Right".
TOMMY:
Did Hillary propose NATIONALIZING the oil industry? This is a simple YES or NO response from you. If YES, please show where she said she favored the "red", "communist", proposal to nationalize oil companies, taking them out of private ownership.
If NO, then this "opinion" expressed in Insight was based on a LIE, otherwise known as "misinformation". It is an attempt to mischaracterize and LIE about what Hillary proposes, in a scare tactic that harkens back to the days of Sen. Joe McCarthy.
An "opinion" based on false premise(s) draws FALSE conclusions that are invalid and demand correction, if displayed in a public forum (which this "opinion" was). In fact, this FALSE CONCLUSION had the intent to smear and foment hatred, and engender FEAR against a particular candidate, Hillary, and it was unfounded in facts.
So, you make the call, Tommy. Did Hillary propose NATIONALIZATION, or not?
Tex,
I don't know what Hillary proposed. All she said was she wanted to take oil company's profits. No specifics, none. You are fine with your conclusions as you see them, so is apparently the author of this piece.
"i don't know what hillary proposed". there it is in all it's tommy like simplicity. words straight from the horse's mouth, doesn't know what she said, but he'shere to argue about it anyway. you will notice, tommy, in the article above that she has called for taxing a "portion" of their excess profits, not all of them. but that would mean you would have to actually read and digest something, instead of jumping in to be mr. contrarian.
"the other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. i want to take those profits..." that's clearly a reference to what she sees as profits above and beyond the norm. i don't think any rational person thinks she wants to take away all profits or nationalize the industry. the right would be in full war cry if she did.
Please, tell me how you define as profits above the norm. Be careful, because Google has a higher return on equity than Exxon. So, according to your theory, Hillary should be taxing Google before proceeding to Exxon.
What about trial lawyers like John Edwards? Did they not make profits that were above the norm?
Heck no--he's running a homeless shelter in that 28,000 sq. ft. (at last count) home. But he's for the little guy, and besides, he has the right hair and teeth.
Don't use Return To Capital in such a brutal way. It's like pulling the rug out, and cold cruel reality can be traumatizing.
Nice.
Smear John Edwards, a man who worked hard and picked himself up by his bootstraps. Coming from a working class family and working his way up he understands the nature of oppurtunity. That is to say that success requires risk but oppurtunity can be more broadly available when the social safety net is in place to diminish the harshness of failing in our market.
Furthermore, from reading many of these conservative posters on this thread the central thesis of their argument is coming into full relief: Conflation of the very manageable financial burdens of the ultrawealthy with the very serious financial afflictions of the working class.
It just goes against my every conviction to side with with the elite minority over the suffering masses. And therein lies our disgreement.
Tex, you want Tommy to give you a simple yes or no answer?
In what universe do you live? It must be nice there, since you can actually get a simple, non-misleading answer.
Tex:
Hillary said "... I want to take those profits..." Unless you believe that an accomplished lawyer and experience politician does not know how to express her position better, I have to conclude that she "wants to take those profits."
If she meant that she wants to introduce a special and temporary tax, should she not have said that? Unless she defines "... I want to take those profits..." as meaning I want to introduce a special and temporary tax. If that is the case she may be trying to outdo Bill's comments about the definition of "is".
A politician who cannot properly express her major policies, and I would think energy is pretty major, ought not to be a politician.
Hillary does not only have a confusing policy with respect to oil profits. Her entire campaign is falling apart because of confusion. She appears unable to address any issue with a modicum of clarity and consistency. Her website has become a "correcting mechanism" for a poorly thought out set of policies. Even Hollywood is giving up on her.
Hillary can destroy her own credibility more readily than the right wingers can.
HENRIJENSON:
You make some strong allegations. You say, "Her entire campaign is falling apart because of confusion. She appears unable to address any issue with a modicum of clarity and consistency. Her website has become a "correcting mechanism" for a poorly thought out set of policies."
RESPONSE: Wow! A year til the primaries, and you paint a grim picture of Hillary and her policies. You even bolster your claim by sending us to her website, where we will find confusion, no issue addressed clearly or consistently, and all "corrections".
So I went to this site, Googled number one: http://www.votehillary.org/
Guess what? It's like having someone describe that your car has been in a terrible accident, totalled, and then you look out in the driveway and there's not a scratch on it.
MORAL: It's easy to characterize, but if you're going to describe something that EXISTS in REALITY, you'd be well advised NOT to describe it as you see it in a fevered fantasy generated by partisan wishes, but as it actually IS. See, presenting rightwing SPIN and LIES as FACT isn't working any more.
All I can say is: man watch the news... she's lost Hollywood... she can't repudiate her vote on Iraq... a movie giant publicly called her a liar... and, yes, we still have a year to go... what other problems will she create???
Oh! Yes! There is that issue of "... I want to take those profits..." But that simply means she'll tax them a bit more without saying that.
Tommy you molest small furry animals. Even though stated as fact its not misinformation just my opinion. The claim that an opinion stated as fact can not be misinformation is just plain stupid
I think El Rushbo was playing this clip, the "I want to take these profits" part.I don't know how HC meant this, but you know it translated as "confiscate your property" to the rightys.
And the commie scare is back, but it apparently has nothing to do with the Gov't taking billions of our money to fight BS wars and occupy nations.
I was recently reminded of Tom Robbins "Another Roadside Attraction" and the character Marx Marvelous, who had taken his pseudonym as a way to irritate good solid Americans,it being a combination of Communist and gay that was probably pretty frightening at the time the book was written a few decades ago.
Imagine that. In my lifetime, one could scare a good number of our fellow Americans just by hinting at those two evils. A political party may have even made itself viable concentrating on those boogeymen.What year was that book written?
And to take it one step further, can you imagine how wealthy you'd have been if you could have predicted this and invested in "Depends" undergarments for those "Great Americans" who get worked up over this?
LOLOLOLOLO
Worrierking, thats funny. (thanks for the smile)
Oh and don't forget! If we don't stop those commies in Vietnam right now, in five or ten years Junior is going to be saluting Stalin, as communism sweeps over the world!
Right on... and who gave us Vietnam??? Oh! Yes! That was... John Kennedy... a real fascist Democrat!
An investment in Depends would have yielded passive, sometimes called unearned income, and subject to higher tax rates, a delight to some here. On the other hand, the return on the investment may have enjoyed a deferral of taxation by being in a retirement fund, as is the case for many here. That, of course, makes the gain on investment an un-greedy gain.
As for myself, since I have no retirement plan, I don't give a $&@*.
Here we go again. No one enjoys paying taxes and it's a myth that liberals want high taxes for the sake of high taxes. Nor do we favor big bloated government. Do some research and you might find liberals are something different than your preconcieved notions.
That's what's missing from the present situation....a good catch phrase like Red Scare. In my opinion, Islamophobia doesn't quite capture the hysteria and sounds far too scientific to make a good marketing pitch. Meca Scare? Allah Fright? Have fun coming up with more.
Turban blight?
Arabnoia?
Mohammedistraction?
I got nuthin.
Ya got plenty, but you forgot Turban Sprawl.
So now *I* am confused. 99% of the S.C.U.M.* assure me (a devout liberal) that Hillary is unsuited to my political roster, because she has so rapidly "moved to the right" on all major issues.
Here comes Insight to assure me that Hillary is unsuitable to my political roster, because she is flat-out communist. My question is, where was Hillary on the political spectrum BEFORE she "moved to the right"? What is far left of communism? I feel so . . . dumb . . .
*So-Called Unbiased Media, courtesy of Easy To Refute Wingnuts
I am running to ensure that we actually address them and meet them and get results here in our country, because we have to prove to ourselves, as well as the rest of the world, that we're still the most creative, the most innovative, most effective nation in the history of the world.
And if it turns out that you are the most creative, innovative, and most effective company in the US, I will take any profits you make that I deem to be excessive and use them as I wish. Point well taken , Hillary.
You are a slave to corporations and "free markets" friend. There is a reasonable balance of profits and taxation on corporations. And even if you're narrow view of Hillary's comments were true; if elected President she would not have the authority to do what the yahoos suggest she wants to do. And what exactly has the oil industry done for this country? What innovations, oh capitalist swami, have the energy companies provided? Trading on futures? That worked out swell for the folks in California and employees of Enron. I want to cap profits and ceo salaries but sadly there is currently no representation in Washington who shares that view.
I agree with you to a point, but I'm not a slave to the "free market", but it provides me and my family with a nice second income from dividends and tax breaks. Obviously, a cap, would cut into that. I do not wish to see it happen. I do not think it is up to you, me, or Hillary to decide what kind of profit is excessive, nor do I think it is reasonable for her to put a tax on their profits. Oil companies provide a needed neccessity and pay taxes. Like it or not, this country comes to stop without it. And your last point, the ceo of enron committed a crime as was punished for it. Your point?
The CEO of Enron paid nothing. His conviction was vacated because he died before sentencing.
Are you actually blaming him for dying before he served time? You lefty's are great.
So Dave, making 125% profit on a product is not excessive? Maybe 140%? How about 200%
(BTW maybe read some history of corporate America, also some info about the massive tax breaks given to oil companies, some time). Also I suggest looking at the price of a barrel of crude oil some time and than driving down to your local gas station, compare the cost to you versus the cost per barrel (domestic & foreign). Although the cost has gone down, that was roughly in proportion to the public outcry over the rising prices. (Also consider that for much of this country, this also affects their home heating cost as well as the price to drive to the store.) Let me know what you find! (plus remember that oil companies receive local, state, and federal tax breaks, and a lot of them. So in some cases the cost to transform the oil to gas for your car is actually profit for these companies.)
If you can prove a case of 125% (or more profit), I would stand near the front of the line in demanding an excess profits tax. In the meantime, as I recall when gas was around $3.00/gallon, crude prices were over $70/barrel (maybe on a futures market, topic for another discussion). A barrel of crude is 44 gallons, that makes crude $1.59/gallon (assuming a 100% yield of gasoline from a gallon of crude). Add transportation costs (not many of us have oill wells and/or refineries in our home towns), refining costs, distribution costs, overhead (repairs, maintenance, etc), marketing costs, dealer margin, and roughly $.46/gallon state and federal gas taxes (average). What do you suppose the pretax profit is as a % of sales? 125%? 140%? 200%? or???? Instead of throwing abstract percentages out there, provide examples, please.
Do your own research. The oil industry has repeated record profits each quarter. BP got busted letting a pipeline go to rot so the market would fluctuate in their favor. I don't find it hard to believe that profits for big oil have been in the range 150% or more. If they can give ceo millions of dollars in bonuses I'd say they are making a pretty big profit.
Bing and McCain
You are long on conspiracy and nowhere on knowledge of what it takes to get oil out of the ground and to your car.
Re: profits at any particular point of the process: why wouldn't someone be seeking (shudder) profit in such activity? How long do you last if you don't make profit?
Moreover, how long does your pension fund management last if they don't make profit for you (includes your money invested in oil companies, in case you're unaware)?
Do you want to pay $6/gallon for your gas? Just pile on the taxes, and you'll get what you're asking for.
You are so far off topic, I don't think you understand what's being discussed.
Don't run because you can't deal with the actual essence of the topic.
You have been pontificating on topics surrounding Hillary's unfortunately-worded remark. Don't deny it, and then opt out when the shallowness of your real-world business knowledge gets pointed out.
I'm sorry I don't worship money like some. You can call me what you like but you're still not on the topic. This post has nothing to do pensions or markets blah blah blah. And I don't care to run a business so don't spend my time pontificating on the best way to stretch my dollar. The only people obsessed with economics and this absurd notion that Hillary Clinton wants to nationalize the oil industry. Changing the subject is a common tactic for one who has no argument.
Sorry for the confusing post, I must have inadvertantly removed a chunk of text. Oh well.
And just what conspiracies are you talking about? And what does that have to with anything? I know it takes a lot to make gas, what's your point?
conservative myth number 4,632: Liberals don't like profits and are anti-capitalist.
Sorry but the Great Depression taught us a painful lesson when markets are "free." I like money as much as the next guy.
As I recall, Exxon-Mobile's stated profit was in the range of 12-15% of sales (maybe a tad on the high side, but totally unreasonable?). Or are you saying labor costs should not be deducted as a cost of doing business? You are probaly very happy pulling into a gas station and finding the tank full, the pumps working, the lights on, etc.
No I'm not. I'm just pointing out your error concerning the punishment given to Ken Lay. You claimed he was punished. The facts are that he was not.
This has nothing to do with left or right. It has everything to do with crime and punishment. Lay died a convicted felon, but was not punished for his crime.
He was offed, because he knew too much.
My point was we can not count on corporations to act with the consumer in mind. We can't count on them being virtuous or responsible without government regulation. Despite the legal issues involving Enron the bottom line is the people most affected will never see restitution. The government has a duty to steer industry to remain competitive and to act in the citizenry's best interests. It does not serve our nation's interests to allow oil companies to have such a hold on our economy and consumers do not have the power to amend that. Your analogy of oil companies providing a service smacks of the street pusher who provides his customers with a service by selling them narcotics. Capitlaism has to have limits, government is the only body that can do that, our government is representative of the people and needs to be directed by us.
Corporations exist only because we the people, through the laws our representatives write, permit them to exist. We enable their profits. It is not unreasonable for we the people to demand some back.
It is absolutely not unreasonable, fairly. The problem with some is enough is never enough. And unfair taxation is unreasonable.
My post was in response to Dave's statement that "I do not think it is up to you, me, or Hillary to decide what kind of profit is excessive." In my opinion, as citizens who enable corporations, we have every right to decide what kind of profit is excessive.
Who is "we"? And on what basis is that determined?
We the people. Through our represntative form of governance, we is us.
Correct.
Sorry, can't go along with that. When government starts telling corporations, or people, how much they should make in profits, I get nervous. And you should too.
TOMMY:
When Oil Companies no longer drill in public lands, no longer receive such windfalls as "oil depletion allowances', when oil companies are not handed sweetheard deals managed by government to gain access to foreign oil supplies, when oil companies are shown not to avail themselves of offshore banking accounts that are tax free, when oil companies cease to hide the personal wealth of their owners behind GOVERNMENT GRANTED corporations, when oil companies fire all their billion-dollar lobbiests in Washington D.C. and cease giving contributions to our government officials ...
THEN I will agree with you that Oil Companies should be left alone with their "earned" profits. Until the time these conditions are met, I believe your desire to insulate oil companies from government are utterly ridiculous ... the ties are gigantic, and the oil companies FORGE those ties for their exclusive benefit. To say WE THE PEOPLE should have no say in their taxation rate, etc, is laughable.
Incidentally, you throw the word "FAIR" around when discussing taxes, as if it is a word that has any practical meaning in this context. What is "FAIR" is subjective, which becomes OBJECTIVE whenever tax policy is written by our elected representatives ... supposedly. As of now, there is nothing "FAIR" about how oil companies are taxed ... they have invested millions through their lobbiests to have the laws written in their favor.
To be "FAIR", shouldn't the common man have a lobby with equal strength of the oil companies? Or is unfairness established by who has the biggest wallet a type of unfairness you think is based on some notion of "justice"? The GOLDEN RULE, perhaps ... he who has the most GOLD makes the RULES?
Bravo, Tex.
Good on you for countering the meathead memes of market fundamentalism with truth, justice and the American way!
Tex, Why don't you just lay out your positions instead of falsely summarizing mine? If yours aren't strong enough on their own merit, that is your problem. You just look pathetic here.
I never said "insulate oil companies from government". Please quote me directly where I said that.
I never said "we should have no say in their taxation rate". That is utterly ridiculous and you know it. Please quote me directly where I said that.
Any points you attempt to make are lost when you cannot be truthful, sorry. Try again.
Tommy:
I believe you've made your position quite clear concerning big oil companies, their taxes, and what is "fair".
It's a shame you do not.
Tex
"Hiding personal wealth of the corporation's owners behind government-granted corporate status..." (I paraphrased you).
What are you talking about? Some here will nod their heads in agreement, 'cause it fits their conspiracy mindset, but I need you to explain yourself to me.
Whose PERSONAL owners'wealth is HIDING behind a corporation? How does that work? Does that mean that you, as a stockholder of an oil company (applies to many here, if not you personally) are hiding behind the corporation? How does that work?
Think carefully about your answer.
LEMOC, is that short for lemming? Don't get lost in your enonomic jargon and rhetoric. It is no conspiracy that many of our industrys use off shore accounts to dodge paying taxes and it doesn't take a genius to know that big oil is raking in record profits and not passing it to the consumer even though the current crop of free marketeers keep throwing our tax dollars at them.
Actually, Bing
LEMOC stands for Least Enthusiastic Member Of Collectivism.
As the least enthusiastic of said collective, I consider it an obligation to stop the lemmings from advocating for, and effecting, higher taxation upon themselves by socking it to "the other guy", by hiring hitmen such as Hillary.
Who said anything about raising taxes on us lemmings?
If I tax you, adding to your burden, I'm just taxing myself, because your cost of delivering your service or goods is that much higher.
So, basically I'm too stupid to recognize my own best self-interest?
Why? Because I would rather see the greatest beneficiaries of our commonwealth contribute the greatest share back into the commonwealth?
You are talking about the very real and serious struggles of small business. We are talking about the very manageable problems of the most profitable industry in the history of civilization.
A well-drawn perspective. And if we have concerns about unfairness or manipulation in markets, non-competive practices, etc., we have to have (this) discussion, as is the case in microprocessors, aircraft, steel, and the rest of them. The divestiture of industries where some players get too dominant is a subject revisited constantly in this country's history. Another benefit of being a free people.
What is alarming on this site is the economic illiteracy displayed by some when it comes to basic economics and business. Example: the notion that the Fortune 500 (and every other public company) is owned by a bunch of fat cats, when the bulk of the stock is owned by the "little guy". Example: the notion that an expense (write-off) is a tax credit. Example: the notion that oil companies always are profitable, when returns to the invested dollar are as likely better in other industries.
Such willful and wanton ignorance among otherwise intelligent people will eventually result in policies that put burdens on the people who thought they were helping the little guy by punishing success.
Don't stop. You do a wonderful job of illustrating your ignorance.
LEMOC:
Happy to oblige. A Corporation is solely the creation of government. It iw the creating of a "BODY" -- like a new person -- which then becomes responsible for all debts, etc., incurred by that particular operation.
Let's look at a simplistic example. I create a corporation. That corporation has $1 million income in the first year, which includes profits and investor's money. I grant myself a $900,000 "executive bonus" for the year. The following year, the corporation goes bankrupt.
BECAUSE it is a corporation, I personally am not responsible for its debts. My own personal fortune is protected by government law. The investors, the workers, and the suppliers are all OUT OF LUCK: they cannot lay a hand on the $900,000 I took from the company. They lose, I win.
That's how corporations are creations of the government, and how unscrupulous "entrepreneurs" can game the system to loot and then have their ill-gotten gains PROTECTED.
There are as many variations on this theme as there is imagination in the minds of corrupt men ("golden parachutes", Ken Lay spring to mind), but the STRUCTURE of the corporation has two main features: (1) it protects individual fortunes of the owners, and (2) it is entirely a mechanism of GOVERNMENT.
Of course, the RULES of business are constantly changing, primarily due to the influence of armies of lobbiests, each seeking another way for owners to make out like bandits while leaving all others holding the bag. These "advantages" range from tax laws to regulations to trade policies and laborer's "rights" to environmental policy. The entire game is rigged in favor of the wealthy owners of corporations ... and the beauty is, they HAVE NO PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Thank you Tex. An excellent argument.
You're both dreamin'. Try what you described and departments of revenue, both state and federal, will shoot through what you think is the "corporate veil" and slap you with RICOH so fast you won't know what hit you.
You define "corporation" correctly, but you are confused about closely-held corporations vs. public corporations, Subchapter S corporations, LLC's, and partnerships, and the laws that apply to each and/or all, and the amount of white-collar crime that is currently being prosecuted (successfully).
LEMOC:
Now I see what you meant by "be careful". I needed to prepare for you to simply dismiss any concerns by saying the government would OF COURSE intervene if there was any hanky-panky.
Wow. Are you familiar with how hard the SEC came down on GW Bush when he sold his shares of Harkin just prior to the company releasing a report that announced the company was nowhere near in the financial health it was representing? Bush READ that report, then sold his shares on the insider information. He was investigated, and then .... nothing. The investigation is still open, and Bush was not even interviewed. It was just dropped. Of course, his daddy was president at the time, so maybe the fact that the SEC is beholden to the executive branch had something to do with the disinterest in Bush's behavior.
Yeah, pal, sing to me about how hard our Justice system comes down on the theives and scoundrels in the corporate boardrooms. Did you know, major industries are JUST NOW announcing that they have seriously "underfunded" their pension plans for years, and so now all their employee's depended-upon retirement funds DON'T EXIST? These same companies never missed an opportunity over the years to lavish huge BONUSES on their executives.
The stories are legion. Your assurances are laughably hollow.
Laws get broken, some criminals escape. To make things right, let's just kill the goose.
Re: underfunding of pensions, take it up with the mostly Democrat-controlled legislatures of the last 50 years. They wrote the pension law--for us little guys.
And, of course, you cannot buy shares on the NYSE, NASDAQ, etc. Those owners of corporations are born with them... That is why Microsoft, which did not exist forty years ago, is now bigger than GM, etc. Those corporate owners just control the economy. They make me smoke and eat fatty food; that's why I am 100 pounds overweight. The corporations did it to me. And that's not all, they also invented AIDS just to get sick people to buy expensive medications. In fact, malaria, it is a little known secret, is not carried by flies... NO, NO, NO... It's the corporations, stupid.
You should get an education.
Hank, you're right,
Those shares owned in the retirement funds of many of these posters--those are somehow seperate from all the other common shares, so they won't really be socking themselves with more taxes, less growth, lower dividends--they're the good guys; the EEE-VILL guys would be somebody else, most likely somebody who makes more of a show of their money, like maybe John Edwards or Terry McCauliffe, a Kennedy or a Heinz.
Sure, if you view government as an entity seperate from the people, to be feared and beat back, I can see why you fear that. Thankfully our Jeffersonian Democracy gives the people power over the government. The attitude that government is the enemy actually gives it more power over you. Kind of ironic. When you realize that our government is an extension of the people, that our elected officials govern at our consent, there is nothing to fear.
Bing...
The gov't is our buddy. Nothing to fear, doesn't need to be 'beat back'.
Get back to us after you start your next business venture.
I assume you are being sarcastic. Government isn't perfect. That wasn't my point. My point was that government is only an evil entity if we the people remove ourselves from it and view it as a dark force to be fought. I complain about my local government all the time. That's part of the process. But I don't fear it like an Ayn Rand free markets will solve allour problems nim rod. The government is us, we the people. Capitalism is a great vehicle but left unchecked benefits a few at the expense of the many.
lemoc...
The corporation is our buddy. Nothing to fear, doesn't need to be 'beat back'.
Get back to us after you screwd by one.
And where was that country where you can't get screwed?
In your imagination.
We The People?
Where have I heard that before?
I don't think that phrase will catch on.
So, how much? What basis, you didn't answer.
Whatever we the people decide is fair and reasonable.
Why stop with oil companies? Let's have our elected representatives figure out what's fair and reasonable for all companies profits to be then? Otherwise, it's unfair. You can't single out one company, that makes no sense.
I meant one industry.
When an industry directly affects our national interests.
Let's get something straight, no where in the Constitution are government powers limited over industry. The government is representative of the citizenry, provided the citizenry remain vigilant of course, and it serves the public's interests to tax and regulate corporations to promote the genreal welfare, provide for the common defence, etc. etc. Obviously capitalism has it's benefits and it serves our interests that our businesses are competitive to provide jobs so more people work and the beat goes on. But it isn't the end all be all. Capitalism left unchecked will strangle individual liberties. The oil industry is a classic example. If we had stuck with Jimmy carter's approach and pushed big oil towards more renewable energy sources we would be the industry leaders. Instead we took the conservative free market approach and continue to be slaves to big oil.
You can't single out one company, that makes no sense.
Yes, it does. Hillary's proposed fee is targeted directly at oil companies to fund research into clean energy. There is relevance between the source of the funds and the beneficial public purpose to which they will be put.
Not only that, but this is all theoretical unless a majority of the House and Senate approve the legislation, and the president signs it. Hillary's not being a dictator here; she doesn't have the power. And even if she were president, she still wouldn't have the power.
There isn't a "floodgates" problem here.
So she wants to take funds from big oil for research and development for alternative energy and that somehow equates to nationalizing the oil industry. Huh. That's just silly.
Not too mention that many on the left, who aren't communist but are called that by some, don't like Hillary because of her corporate tiesand her current hawkish behavior has turned even more "commie pinkos" off.
There are plenty of reasons to criticize Hillary but this is not one of them. And to call her a communist is just profoundly ignorant.
Beaudoin is dumb... as in turnip.
You, on the other hand, display an uncanny ability to express your intellect...
your comment was equally offensive despite being more eloquently put.
Granted. But I attacked his inability to formulate a thought. He called someone dumb just because he does not agree with him.
No, I called him dumb because he took an out-of-context quote to paint a DLC style Democrat as a revolutionary red. Clinton's plan to use some of the oil industry's profits to fund alternative energy sources can be debated, but it was not in any way a proposal to "nationalize [sic] America's oil companies" as Beaudoin falsely contends. "Dumb" was probably a poor choice of wording on my part, as I would guess that Beaudoin was cognizant of the difference. (If he isn't, I'll stand by my original post.) It seems more likely that he was just involved in good old fashioned demagoguery.
If you read her speech, you will find that Beaudoin did not quote her out of context. She was talking about oil company profits at the time. And she said "...I want to take those profits...". She did not qualify that statement. Period.
Many among you want to assign all kinds of meanings to her words. If she mis-spoke she exposed herself as less than articulate concerning energy policy. If she did not mis-spoke, then, we have to take her words at face value. Or when she says that she is pro-choice, should we think that she really means she is pro-life?
"If you read her speech, you will find that Beaudoin did not quote her out of context. She was talking about oil company profits at the time. And she said "...I want to take those profits...". She did not qualify that statement. Period."
---
Henri:She did not qualify it in that particular speech, so Beadouin makes the leap to commie? Do you really think that Hillary Clinton plans to nationalize the oil industry? Do you think -- even if she had the desire to do so -- that as president she would have the power? Beaudoin strips this real-world context from his talking points and presents her as a communist, which she emphatically is not. "I want to take those profits," does not mean that she wants (or has the means) to take all of those profits, any more than my saying that I am going to spend my money at the 7-11 means that I am going to spend ALL of my money at the 7-11. Hillary should further clarify what her plan here is, but it takes an obstinate ideologue to read this as a proposal to nationalize the oil industry.
Here is one speech Hillary gave on energy policy.http://www.clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=247652&&
Her speeches are replete with references to tax credits for auto makers, praise for General Electric, Ford, IBM and General Motors. Not exactly the language of a Marxist-Leninist. She does mention the desirability of an "energy revolution," so maybe that's the Rosetta Stone that Beaudoin can use to link her to Lenin. Here is a specific quote from the above speech. One that deals directly with the taxation of the energy industry:"I believe that we need to assess the oil companies an alternative energy development fee to be put into the new Strategic Energy Fund. We should design the fee so it is taken solely out of unanticipated profits from the sky high oil prices and ensure that it is not passed on to consumers. It could generate as much as $20 billion a year to help retool our economy and deploy new energy strategies."At least philosophically, I agree with this proposal. You and the energy companies may not, but it is light years away from a nationalization of the oil industry. If you can find any direct proposals where she advocates a nationalization of the energy sector, then present it, but most of the arguments being presented by Beaudoin's defenders on this thread seem to equate taxation generically with nationalization. They are not the same thing. Beaudoin is taking one admittedly vague line from one speech and using it to paint a picture that does not correspond with reality.One of these days I will be able to post without weird formatting errors reducing my text to quantum dots.
That article is dumb. Dumb as in Bush.
As the official representative of all of the world's dumb people, I resent being compared to this man.
Suggesting raising taxes on the oil companies enormous profits does not a communist make.
Actually it's not a bad idea....
Hillary just doesn't get that the way to solve our energy problem is to leave it to the private sector and the free market.
(Kidding)
Exactly, and the best way to solve our energy dilemma is for certain liberals to make determinations on how high oil companies profits should be and then tax it out of them and put it in the hands of government bureacrats.
(Kidding)
Citizens pay taxes and so do corporations. Until now. For some reason the oil industry has been absolved from their civic responsibility and the result has been raping the consumer and the environment anyway. You're damn right some liberals will determine a fair tax on big oil.
Not kidding.
Check out the taxes that oil companies pay.
A lot less (percentage wise) than you or I pay.
Have you been sleeping? Big oil has been doing business virtually tax free.
That's ridiculous. Oil companies pay huge amounts in taxes, if you have proof otherwise, show us.
Do your own research! Oil companies have been granted subsidies and tax breaks under the Bush administration never before seen. Seriously that's just crazy talk Tommy.
Check out how many dollars the big oil companies have paid in the last 25 years or so......it's in the trillions. Crazy, isn't it?
That is irrelevant to the discussion. Right now they are not paying their fair share.
So earlier you said they were doing business virtually tax free, not it's just not their fair share? I see.
You do!? Good then I got through to you. Virtually tax free is not their fair share.
I guess in liberalspeak, trillions of dollars is "virtually tax free". Got it.
As I said before your going back 25 years is totally irrelevant. They made trillions and they paid trillions, and the government gave them back billions. This is now. Now, the past 6 years of Bush and Cheney and secret energy meetings and huge tax breaks. Comprende?
RING:
Usually, as in the case of Halliburton, they pay single digit millions to their candidates, and reap tens of BILLIONS in no-bid contracts.
Buying government is the best "return on investment" a big business owner can get.
Remember, a Billion is a THOUSAND millions.
Ah yes, the timeless and equally vague "fair share"...
a phrase never going out of style with politicians buying votes. They know that 90% of people won't ever educate themselves on the whole subject of taxation, who pays, the rates, etc. Just keep murmuring "fair share, fair share", and you'll eventually buy their vote--you're gonna sock it to the OTHER guy, not the poor Dufus you just bought w/ your promises.
Actually that statement by Tommy "Oil companies pay Trillions in taxes), needs to be debunked right now. Because its just not right.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/25/AR2006042501738.html
http://www.publicintegrity.org/oil/report.aspx?aid=346
That took me 3 seconds total time, and does not include local and state taxes breaks given to oil companies in an effort to keep workers employed.
Where are your sources Tommy? waiting...............
You debunked nothing. Your first link was regarding taxes on profits, I am talking about taxes overall. Your second link did nothing to refute the numbers I had. Check out www.taxfoundation.org.
All irrelevant to the topic.
That's only because Monica's red thong got mixed in the whites in the wash.
The guy has a point. When you take someone's profit, you take his property. When a government takes property, that is called nationalization. That is what Hugo Chavez is up to. Instead of calling the writer names and state that Hillary did not mean what she actuallty said, why not ask her and the Democrats tell us whether she/they intend(s) to nationalize the oil industry.
Because the notion of nationalizing the oil industry stems only from the deluded author's mind and not a serious proposal from Democrats. This site is pointing out that the stereotype of socialistic and communist leanings prevail in the DNC is the theme for this hit piece. It raises a question that is absurd on it's face. No one, even Hillary Clinton has suggested the nationalization of the oil industry. And profit is not property and our economy is not buyer beware. See earlier post on constitutionally protected profit. It doesn't exist.
HENRI JENSEN FAILS CIVICS 101.HJ: "The guy has a point."RESPONSE: No, he doesn't.HJ: "When you take someone's profit, you take his property."RESPONSE: Wrong. First off, we're not talking about SOMEONE, we're talking about a corporation. Second, PROFIT only exists after all the costs of doing business are paid. TAX is a price which must be paid, because the Corporation depends on government to survive, and further the corporation AGREES that such things as fiscal policy, defense, roads, fire protection, education, and health care for citizens are in the BEST INTERESTS of doing business and maintaining a "stable marketplace". So, we aren't even TALKING about "taking profits." We're talking about adjusting the "share" the corporation owes in relation to the realities of operating this nation.HJ: "When a government takes property, that is called nationalization."RESPONSE: Wrong again. What book of terminology are you looking at? "NATIONALIZATION" refers to confiscating all means of production, to include property, capital holdings, raw materials, buildings ... and removing them from the ownership of private individuals. To apply NATIONALIZATION to taxes is simply an improper and ignorant use of the term (perhaps straining for hyperbole). If you are taxed to build a road, the road will be public property, but your COMPANY REMAINS IN YOUR POSSESSION. No nationalization, not even as a semantic or rhetorical trick.HJ: "That is what Hugo Chavez is up to."RESPONSE: Really? Chavez is considering adjusting the tax rates of his nation's privately owned industries?HJ: "Instead of calling the writer names and state that Hillary did not mean what she actuallty said, why not ask her and the Democrats tell us whether she/they intend(s) to nationalize the oil industry."RESPONSE: She does NOT. It is clear to anyone who speaks English. However, her plan may be difficult to understand if you believe being taxed amounts to nationalization. Seriously, do you believe that when you buy a license plate, the STATE then owns your car? LOL "My Beemer's been NATIONALIZED! Oh, no!"
All I said, is that her statement says "... I want to take those profits...", not I want to tax those profits. Clearly taking your house would mean that I am taking your ENTIRE house, i.e. 100% of your house. Similarly, Hillary's statement means she will take 100% of "those profits". Hillary is responsible for what she says. You may shout until the end of times that she did not mean what she said. That is not relevant. What is relevant is what she said: "... I want to take those profits...".
Taking 100% of the profit of any business is tantamount to nationalization because a company cannot exist long without making a profit. Also, in our free-enterprise system, a company that has zero profit eventually is unable to raise capital... the Stock Markets disappear... we get back to a feudal system.
Hillary said what she said. Period. When she says she is pro-choice, should I think it means she is pro-choice only in the first 30 days?
If profit is not property, what is the stock market based on??? Hilary did say, I listened to her speech, that the would take those profits. She did not say I will tax them at 50%, etc. She said I will take those profits. That means nationalization because it means a 100% tax rate. That is basic economics.
Read my post earlier in the thread to Tommy. It is most likely she mispoke as this idea has never comeup before and I get all the literature. You have to really want to believe she meant it to honestly believe that she meant it. It's a laughable and absurd idea. It doesn't mean it's not constitutional though. There is good reason to be opposed to the idea but she isn't entertaining that notion. Until I hear her repeateadely trumpet the nationalization of an entire industry and the Democratic party adopts it as a platform, I wouldn't worry that it's going to happen. Even if it was her evil secret plan, Congress would have to make it law, the people would have an oppurtunity to voice concerns and the process would work itself out. It's an absurd idea that I've never heard her voice before and for a guy to pounce on this one example of bad semantics is dishonest or overly cynical.
Hilary said what she said. It is on tape. You may want to believe that she mis-spoke, yet you would not cut Bush the same slack. If she mis-spoke she should say so... That's a simple statement to make: "I do not intend to apply a 100% tax rate to oil companies."
That's it! If we cannot believe what she said in a prepared speech to the DNC, WHEN CAN WE BELIEVE HER??????
Stop. yours is a cry for help. You are basing your belief that she isn't trust worthy because you don't think I would cut Bush the same slack?!? Read my previous post regarding putting food on our families, is are children learning, we will never have an all volunteer army and gynecologists aren't able to practice their love on women. I'll make fun of Bushfor saying them but I don't honestly believe he meant those things. I focus more on his out right lies. Hillary has hers too. But here, she mispoke. And I reiterate if you honestly believe she wants to nationalize the oil industry based on this one statement you are fooling yourself. She does not want to nationalize the oil industry just like Bush honestly doesn't mean half the things he says in public.
No, nationalisation means the government actually taking ownership of a company.
That is basic English.
You are splitting hair or you do not understand anything in business or economics. Take away the ability to make profits and you take away the value of property; you take away the stock market which is based on the ability to make profit.
Applyaing a tax rate of 100% on corporate profits is, de facto, nationalization.
Again, no one is arguing for what you are arguing against. It's not fiscally responsible to do so, it's not prudent to do so and no one is seriously concidering such an action. However, profits aren't property. The one thing that trumps all else is liberty. If a companies profits are at the expense of others liberties then they have no claim to them. That doesn't mean profits are bad or evil. It simply means that profits should not be at the expense of the citizenry. Trust me friend, no liberal I know of is thinking in the terms you believe they do.
Henri, nobody is currently, nor will they ever, pay 100% on corporate taxes.Even if a powerful and hugely subsidized industry like the Petroligarchy was taxed at that rate on what they designate as taxable profit or income, they would still make a profit that would make most businesses and private citizens heads spin.
The amazing part is that conservatives can get you to back their junk up, as they pick your pocket and you salute the little flag they're waving around. I'm assunming that you don't make several million a year. If you do, I apologize for calling you gullible, you're just dirty.
I know that nobody in America is paying taxes at 100% tax rate. That is not my point. My point is that politicians can mis-pronounced words like Bush does. They can say "I voted for it before I voted against it" like Kerry did. These can be written off as mis-spoken comments made on "on the fly". These are understandable mistakes.
Hillary did not do that. She had a prepared speech. She stated her policy. Compare that to her position on the Iraq War. She will not apologize for it because she believes her vote was right. This is a woman who understand what she says and does. Her statement on oil profits ought to be viewed in the same manner as her statement on the Iraq War.
Obama looks better and better...
You truly have to be a fool to hold so tightly to the notion that Hillary meant she wanted to take all the profits from big oil. You have to be a fool who wants or desires to dislike her. Just like you have to be a fool not to comprehend the accurate statement Kerry made about voting for and then against a funding bill. It's a shame that so many lack the ability to overcome their willingness to dislike a politician and like a sheep just follows along with all the fools who can't think for themselves and who will believe anything, no matter how outrageous as long as it bolsters their ideology. I don't even like hillary. I don't like her in the least and have no desire to defend her. Please Henri, if that's your real name, get a clue, think for yourself and honestly ask yourself if you really accept the ridiculous notion that hillary wants to nationalize the oil industry.
HBL--
I assume you've moved all your money out of any other investments and into oil companies, because the profits just make your head spin. Or do you have a better investment--one you could tell us about?
It seems that many comment writers have trouble articulate and express thoughts in full sentences... Things like "dumb as Bush" or "dumb, dumb" might work in a bar when talking to drunks but that's about it. Do left wing Democrats have the ability to engage in the free market for ideas and compete on the basis of thoughts? Or are you limited to name-calling?
Well, I think if you look at the amount of posts and compare it to the name calling it's not a bad ratio. There are a handful that resort to that and by the way seomtimes the name calling is done tongue in cheek. I've seen much worse on conservative blogs. But why not address some of th epoints brought up here instead of your analysis of our articulation?
Two comments
1) foolwing the original article, she did not threaten to take all the profits, only those above a certain artifical ceiling
2) the government actually has been very effective at funding significant research. This is different than having bureacrats directly deal with using the fund. In fact the federal government is one of, if not the largest, funding agent for academic research. Currently where i am at graduate school the college of education is writing proposals for four different grants from federal funding agencies dealing with international education. This is an example, but it could be assumed that chemistry programs are receiving similar funding.
I disagree. She said "... I will take those profits..." She did not say I will take a portion of those profits. You can try to read anything you wish... she still stated that she would take those profits. If she mis-spoke, she should say so. She certainly know whether she mis-voted for the Iraq war!
With respect to alternative energy, if there are any that can compete with oil at current oil prices, where are they?
I disagree. She said "... I will take those profits..." She did not say I will take a portion of those profits. You can try to read anything you wish... she still stated that she would take those profits. If she mis-spoke, she should say so. She certainly knows whether she mis-voted for the Iraq war!
Had she said "I will take YOUR profits from your stock or the sale of your house" would you be as understanding of what she wanted to say or would you think of what she actually said?
To me Hillary is another John Kerry: "I voted for it before I voted against it".
If you can't understand how someone can vote for something and then vote against it then you need to take civics course. You can't overcome your own blind bias to comprehend that HILLARY CLINTON DOES NOT WANT TO TAKE ALL PROFITS from the oil industry, genius.
BETTER TO LIGHT A SINGLE CANDLE, than to curse the darkness.
Just a little research provides the "details" that has our rightwing friends wringing their hands. And it's from the MOONIE Washington Times, yet ...
Hillary urges tax on oil profitsBy Eric PfeifferTHE WASHINGTON TIMESMay 24, 2006Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday called for a two-year tax on oil company profits to help amass $50 billion for the creation of an energy research fund, saying dependence on foreign oil weakens national security. "We need to reform our energy taxes so that large oil companies who reap huge benefits from unexpectedly high energy prices over the next two years will be required to pay a portion of their profits into the strategic energy fund," the New York Democrat said while outlining her energy plan at the National Press Club. Mrs. Clinton said the goal would be to cut the consumption of foreign oil in half by 2025, and that the repeal of oil company tax breaks also could generate money for the fund.
That quote is almost 1 year old...!
It still gives the context that you and Beadouin so blithely ignore, in order to call her a communist. There is a strain of conservatism that declares practically any government curbs on corporate power, any taxation to promote the general welfare, as communism. That is evidently Beadouin's philosophy. Is it yours?
Should we then give Bush"s "Mission Accomplished" the context it deserves? I don't think so. Whatever she said a year ago about oil cannot be assumed to be her policy for the rest of her life.
People do change their minds. And politicians do it all the time. In the same way Hillary would not say that she is pro-abortion (she will say she is pro-choice), she should not say "... I will take those profits..." and expect business people to think that she means a small portion of those profits.
Comparing Hillary to Lenin? LOL!!! She's as communist as her stock portfolio and investment manager. After a career lawyering for Arkansas Inc, wife to a pro-corporate president and a founder of the DLC, she spends 8 years playing Queen of America and wins a New York fiefdom for it. Communist? She's aristocracy. She hasn't a clue what it's like for those out in the real world beyond all the cameras. The bulk of America is subsisting on $30,000 a year or less and dropping....
The Senate has become a house of war happy Millionaires and our press nothing but celebrity-junkies who fawn on money and the power to kill.
Do you think Lenin lived like a pauper? Or Castro? The socialist elite is always willing to take other people's money. And there is always someone richer than they are.
Even if Hillary were as rich as Bill Gates, her statement can only be viewed as what it is "... I will take those profits..." How anyone can read something else in those words... that is beyond me.
Lenin, no but Marx did.
You've yetto expose anything about Hillary Clinton that would define her as being of the socialist elite. Your pouncing on this one obvious mistatement to justify the incorrect position that she has socialist leanings.
HENRI:
Good point. "Communism" is decried as the "red scourge", under which everyone live equally badly ... but there has never BEEN a truly communist/socialist society, and there never WILL. It's an unworkable theory, and would FAIL whenever tried, because it goes against human nature.
Human beings are driven to compete, to better themselves and their families, and to acquire THINGS to represent their efforts and success. Communism (theoretically) would eliminate these basic drives. So it cannot work, if applied to human beings.
As to Castro, etc., so-called "communist leaders" are anything BUT. Instead, they are traditional FEUDAL systems, where those at the TOP have all the wealth and all the power, while the serfs have nothing, struggle to survive, and exist at the whim of their "betters".
Every so-called Communist nation in history, including Cuba, was instead the same old FEUDAL system that dominated Europe for centuries, with the aristocratic "haves", and the masses of "have nots". All means of production were controlled by the ELITES.
So worrying about a Communist takeover just shows ignorance of history and reality. The REAL fear should be directed at those who wish to consolidate all wealth and power into the very few hands, while the masses see their rights, their freedoms, and their quality of life slip ever into oblivion. Sound familiar? It should. GW Bush and his Neocons are headed exactly that direction.
There seems to be some misunderstanding about Hillary's proposal. It is not a proposal to "tax profits 100%" or some other such silliness. Here is a summary, from her website:
"The legislation places a temporary fee on major oil company profits that exceed a 2000-2004 profit baseline. The fee would be in place for two years, and companies could offset their fee by investing in refinery capacity, ethanol production, or electricity generation from wind and other renewable sources. The proposal also eliminates oil company tax breaks that the companies have said they don’t need, and ensures that oil companies pay their fair share of royalties for drilling on public lands. It would raise more than $50 billion to fund research, development and deployment of energy technologies that will reduce America’s oil dependence and greenhouse gas emissions."
I hope that clears up some of the confusion.
Again, I don't care what the website says. It is what she said in a prepared speech that matters. Her website is not she. Hillary should stand by what she said, clarify it or retract it. Until she has done that, I and a lot of pro-business Americans will not believe anyting she says.
Concerning the website comments, if you look at return on equity and return on assets, you will find that the oil industry is not the big bad bear it is portrayed to be. Lots of high tech companies have much higher profitability.
THAT would be why the Bungles have forced the IRS to lay off the persons (formerly) charged with enforcing the tax laws on corporations, while shifting enforcement on individuals from the wealthy to middle-class. Oh, I almost forgot the slashing of the estate tax lawyers!
It is necessary that all the monies looted from the pocketbooks of this nation by that 1%, be hidden, so that those monies may be preserved from the poor or middle-class. Just too bad that gobs of the money had to be pis*sed away on a stupid war, and the nation saddled with $6 trillion of additional debt to the Chinese, in order to keep some focused on the "don't tax the wealthy" talking points!
I would try to argue with you, but it would be like wrestling a pig in the mud. Soon or later it becomes obvious the pig likes it.
Woops, I meant for the pig wrestling joke to be in response to Henri. Sorry for the posting error.
Her website clarifies what she said by more fully describing her proposal. You simply choose to believe what you wish to believe, which is some fantasy about 100% taxation of profits. Believe what you like, but don't be surprised when nobody takes you seriously.
So you're saying that your reading of a prepared general oral statement of her proposed policy takes priority over a prepaired detailed description of that policy?
"as I recall when gas was around $3.00/gallon, crude prices were over $70/barrel "
Refineries buy most of their raw ingredient, crude oil, with long term contracts. Only, when they need some additional crude would they then bid for short term contracts at current prices. Indeed, they should be rewarded handsomely for risking billions of dollars in refining capacity, and committing to long term contracts. But, it is common knowledge here in an energy extraction area, that the refineries are refining crude that they got for a lot less than $70/barrel. Also, nearly all the crude produced domestically, is extracted from resources owned by various goverment agencies, and then leased to drilling and mining companies. These leases are supposedly let in a bidding process, but, the rules and regulations insure that the leases are far below a true market value. For instance, once the BLM designates some land as having energy potential, I cannot bid on a lease, win the bid, and then say graze sheep on it. Or build a golf course, I have to drill for oil, gas or mine it.
It is a great deal for the extraction industry, they pay rock bottom prices for the raw resource, get tax breaks just for showing up, and get to sell to the highest bidder.
Let's review the definition of LEASEHOLD, a form of ownership, with a defined lifespan.
You pay somebody for a lease, which means you have the right to the use of that property. Not me, not a sheepherder, just you.
If a sheepherder wants to run his sheep, he can bid on a GRAZING lease. And I can't remember any grazing leases being bid into the billions of dollars, as in oil and gas leases. Bidding on oil and gas leases, timber rights, etc. from time to time appears unenthusiastic (as in times of low markets), but more often takes on the charactaristics of a street fight. It is common for bidders to go to an auction with instructions to "run it up as far as you dare, and then drop it on 'em", meaning be as hard on your competition as you possibly can.
Who are you trying to kid? Try the real world sometime.
Take Hillary's speech; replace "... I want to take those profits..." with "... I want YOUR money..."; and think of "YOUR money" being your personal investments. After you've done that, ask yourserlves whether or not Hillary's statement is fine with you. You may feel that the website comments written last May are much less reassuring to those whose money has been targeted.
A word about oil and oil prices. The reason they are high is "government intervention" i.e. OPEC. Oil companies have made extremely large and risky investments over the years and the profits they make based on a return on investment basis are a fraction of what software companies make. for instance, an offshore drilling rig costs upward of $500 millions; an offshore production platform will fetch upward of a billion dollars; a refinery cost over $5 billion dollars in capital costs. Compare those costs with Google's cost structure...
All irrelevant because they are based on a flawed observation and a stubborn will to hear what you want to hear and ignore all else. No one istalking about nationalizing the oil industry. Secondly oil is not the answer for our energy needs. It hasn't been. But thanks to cons like Reagan who worship markets and place a higher value on corporations than people, we regressed back into our oil gluttony. Renewable energy projects were abandoned. While Ronnie was calling the government evil, had it been used effectively could have safely guided our energy independence while creating an entirely new industry for us to dominate. Our products and services are outsourced for the sake of the "free" markets. Abandoning tarrifs and sensible regulatios on industry we have painted ourselves into a corner. So can your profits above all else rhetoric. Had we decent leadership and good representation in our government, our economy would be much stronger, our nation more independent and a more perfect union formed. Your equating taxation with socialism is way off base.
I do not hear what I want to hear. I hear what Hillary said. I did not make it up. No right wing conspiracy make her say "...I want to take those profits..." She is responsible for what she said. And I do believe that was a prepared speech.
You obviously do not want to hear what she said but, rather, what you would have liked to say. I have no such luxury. I have a business. A presidential candidate declares that she wants to target companies for a special tax penalty, I shudder and wonder when my company will be targeted.
Hillary made a huge mistake and, mark my words, it will come back to haunt her campaign.
All of these arguments that defend the status quo suffer from a failure of imagination.
Investment in renewable energy is a noble pursuit. Consider the benefits of inventing ourselves out from under our addiction to foreign oil. Think of the jobs that can be created in research and development, manufacturing and shipping in the new frontier of renewable energy. However, it is only fair that the oil companies, which benefit most from our national addiction to foreign oil, contribute the most to our liberation from it.
We want business to flourish so don't be paranoid, keep your profits. Taxes are an investment in infrastructure and those that enjoy the greatest profit from infrastructure are morally obligated to give back a greater share. That is personal responsibility.
HENRI has a point. Let's stubbornly grab a line from a spoken speech, like a pit bull terrier, and REFUSE to listen to or read any clarification, any correction, or any explanation.
If the person SAYS it, then that's the final word.
Lauer: You said to me a second ago, one of the things you'll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?President Bush: I have never said we can win it in four years.Lauer: So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?President Bush: I don’t think you can win it.
TEX:
I am looking forward for an explanation from... Hillary. With all due respect, neither you nor anyone else in this "comment room" qualify to speak for Hillary.
My point from the start has been Hillary must clarify, correct or retract her "... I will take those profits..." statement. Until she does, I will take her at her words.
Perhaps Hillary should apply a special tax on all U.S. companies that provide a ROI in excess of 10% per annum. This way the U.S. government would penalize profitable companiew while rewarding those that are less successful by not over-taxing the latter.
I am being sarcastic.
Penalize successfull companies and pretty soon you won't have any successful companies.
Taxation isn't penalization. It's civic responsibility. Something the free marketeers can't fathom, a social contract. You are fortunate enough to be born in the greatest country on earth but feel you and industry only concern yourself with the bottom line. The "me" generation. Well friend we tried your approach and it sucks. The middle class is shrinking, wages are stagnating, monopoplies are destroying competition and innovation. Free markets aren't free for most.
And you are a socialist! Economic history clearly shows that free enterprise is the most efficient wealth creating system ever conceived. Every other systems fails in the long run.
You listen too much to Lou Dobbs. His "war on the middle-class thesis" is just wrong. Just like his exporting jobs to cheaper foreign labour markets. Based on his theory, states south of the Mason-Dixon line would still be cotton producing.
HENRI:
Let's talk baseline reality.
Capitalism contains within it's structure the seed of its own destruction.
Under Capitalism, there are certain drives and imperitives:
1. Grow or die; stagnant companies will perish.
2. Constantly increase market share.
3. Eliminate or absorb the competition.
The problem is, when these "rules" of Capitalism are followed, they inevitably lead to MONOPOLY, which is a FAILURE of Capitalism.
We saw this first in America at the turn of the century, when the robber barons were driving competition out of business, merging, and ever expanding their power and scope.
Anti-Trust law was necessary to protect Capitalism from itself. Only government can intervene and ensure that markets are free of the crippling effects of Capitalism taken to its logical conclusion: ONE business, no competition, in any particular industry.
This is a TRUTH, and it flies in the face of "pure economists" who wish to claim that any fetter on Capitalism is BAD, and further would constitute "COMMUNISM". Balderdash. Capitalism has a fatal flaw, when practiced in the real world, but it can (and MUST) be tempered (regulated) to avoid that destruction.
Further, there are "public goods' ... like environmental protection ... that do not directly contribute to a company's bottom line. Thus, expecting "market solutions" to solve all problems of men is fatally naive. Many services must be performed by government, because there is no profit motive for businesses to perform these functions, but the health of the nation and society depend on these things being done. Thus, "let the MARKET decide" is an unworkable notion.
Finally, in THEORY, those who "succeed" should have no fetters upon their wealth accumulation, and the POWER that comes with having all the wealth. In PRACTICE, we have seen many times in history, an impoverished citizenry will not adhere to the finer points of market economics and the miracle of compound interest and the beauty of the freedom to amass huge fortunes. Instead, they will focus on the INJUSTICE of such a class-divided society, and eventually REBEL. It happened in Russia at the time of the Czars, and in France when Marie Antoinette was suggesting the masses just "eat cake". Theory is great, but POLICY should take into account the reality of human reactions, when the "rules" work for the top 5%, and the rest of a nation's citizens slide into grinding poverty.
THEORY versus REALITY. It's a real wake-up call. And economic theorists would do well to factor in the human COSTS of things. They know the COST of everything, but the VALUE of nothing.
3.
Non sense. New industries are created all the time. Take Microsoft which did not exist 40 years ago; Cisco Systems which did not exist 20 years ago; and Google which did not exist 10 years ago. Are they all owned by GM or the Big Oil? No. The essence of capitalism is not ultimate monopoly but creative destruction... the process by which new ideas create new industries that replace the old one. Capitalism will stagnate when human imagination fails.
ONE FINAL NOTE about the wealth of nations.
When JFK entered the White House, marginal tax rates were quite high, around 70%(!), and he lowered them.
Yet, at that time, America had just come through the 1950's, which featured an unprecedented post-war (WWII) BOOM, and America was thriving. Manufacturing, housing, inventiveness, technology, agriculture, ALL had experienced great growth and progress. And this was WITH the tax rates high.
So, this bugaboo that "if you raise taxes on business, then growth and production will shut down, and there will be no jobs" ... simply is not true. In THEORY, in a classroom, one can take pencil to paper and show how higher taxes will kill an economy. You can even draw pretty charts and graphs. But in the REAL WORLD, we have an example that shows people defy that theory. Theoretically, it couldn't happen. But it DID.
If one takes your theory to its logical conclusion, a 100% tax rate would be best...
What can anyone with two degress in Economics respond? Well... man you are so off the mark and your knowledge of economics is so spotty as to be tantamount to non-existent.