SD Jarhead Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12237.html This is fuggin crazy! Gee, let's take a companies profits and redistribute it to 'the people'. Talk about pandering to the lowest common denominator. If you vote for me I'll give your family $1000! Woo-Hoo! Free money! Oh and by the way...he's got this government budgeting all figured out too: “Obama simply asks that big oil companies contribute a reasonable share of the windfall profits they receive from high oil prices over the next five years to pay for emergency assistance for families right now,” the campaign says. So let's get this strait. He's going to force energy companies to contribute profits THEY HAVEN'T MADE YET to "working families" RIGHT NOW? This is crazy!
PastaJoe Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 Remind me why I should feel sorry for companies that keep breaking the all-time records for profits and at the same time are receiving huge tax breaks, while the average person has to spend more of their budget paying for energy costs?
Chef Jim Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 Remind me why I should feel sorry for companies that keep breaking the all-time records for profits and at the same time are receiving huge tax breaks, while the average person has to spend more of their budget paying for energy costs? Probably because you own a boatload of their shares in your 401k and other mutual fund accounts.
John Adams Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 Remind me why I should feel sorry for companies that keep breaking the all-time records for profits and at the same time are receiving huge tax breaks, while the average person has to spend more of their budget paying for energy costs? Big difference between "feeling sorry" for them and taking their money for the sole reason that they have some.
KD in CA Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 Remind me why I should feel sorry for companies that keep breaking the all-time records for profits and at the same time are receiving huge tax breaks, while the average person has to spend more of their budget paying for energy costs? Gee, I dunno. Maybe because we're supposed to be living in a free country?
SD Jarhead Posted August 1, 2008 Author Posted August 1, 2008 Remind me why I should feel sorry for companies that keep breaking the all-time records for profits and at the same time are receiving huge tax breaks, while the average person has to spend more of their budget paying for energy costs? I take it you're in favor of this 'plan' (shceme is more like it)?
erynthered Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 I was listening to part of that speech yesterday. When he brought up the windfall profits tax, the people in the crowd started cheering. Who the !@#$ do they think is going to ultimately pay that tax. !@#$ing lemmings.........
pBills Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 Here we go, the daily dose of bashing Obama. McCain's strategy to a "T".
Chilly Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 Here we go, the daily dose of bashing Obama. McCain's strategy to a "T". Boohoo, your precious Obama is being attacked. There shouldn't be any attacks in politics, just hand holding and kumbayah singing. (Best part is, you can't claim that this is an attack on a non-substantive issue).
pBills Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12237.html This is fuggin crazy! Gee, let's take a companies profits and redistribute it to 'the people'. Talk about pandering to the lowest common denominator. If you vote for me I'll give your family $1000! Woo-Hoo! Free money! Oh and by the way...he's got this government budgeting all figured out too: “Obama simply asks that big oil companies contribute a reasonable share of the windfall profits they receive from high oil prices over the next five years to pay for emergency assistance for families right now,” the campaign says. So let's get this strait. He's going to force energy companies to contribute profits THEY HAVEN'T MADE YET to "working families" RIGHT NOW? This is crazy! After all those huge profits all go towards exploration and investments in technology. $1,287 for every second of 2007. I hope numbers like that cover their expenses.
pBills Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 Boohoo, your precious Obama is being attacked. There shouldn't be any attacks in politics, just hand holding and kumbayah singing. (Best part is, you can't claim that this is an attack on a non-substantive issue). What does it say about a candidates stance on many issues when all they do is attack.... never being positive even with their own opinions. Obviously he didn't learn anything from Hillary's campaign. Negative works, to a point. To much of it pushes people away. Whatever happened to that guy who stated he wouldn't run a campaign like that?
DC Tom Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 Remind me why I should feel sorry for companies that keep breaking the all-time records for profits and at the same time are receiving huge tax breaks, while the average person has to spend more of their budget paying for energy costs? Remind me how "windfall" profits are defined. Really...no one has a problem with the arbitrary determination that some profits are unfair and therefore must be penalized for the benefit of all? How do you make that determination?
PastaJoe Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 Probably because you own a boatload of their shares in your 401k and other mutual fund accounts. I'm willing to get less return on my investments if there's shared sacrifice for the benefit of the average American.
IDBillzFan Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 I'm willing to get less return on my investments if there's shared sacrifice for the benefit of the average American. Well, that makes two of you.
pBills Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 That is truly the question. I would imagine you have to start by looking at their books and see what is really sent towards oil exploration and investment? If it's a weak number, whatever that percentage that may be... then it would harder to justify those ridiculously huge profits. It seems to me that use, etc. is all down, even if only by a few percent, yet they set a new record. I am curious though - how many people really have their 401(k) involved with big oil. Personally I believe that was just one hell of a ad campaign.
John Adams Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 That is truly the question. I would imagine you have to start by looking at their books and see what is really sent towards oil exploration and investment? If it's a weak number, whatever that percentage that may be... then it would harder to justify those ridiculously huge profits. It seems to me that use, etc. is all down, even if only by a few percent, yet they set a new record. I am curious though - how many people really have their 401(k) involved with big oil. Personally I believe that was just one hell of a ad campaign. Find me any large cap or sizable index fund in a 401(K) that doesn't have shares of big oil. Keep looking. "Take from the rich and give to the poor." This isn't a McCain-based attack...it's an attack by a few people here who think it's wrong to take people's money just because they are making some.
Chilly Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 What does it say about a candidates stance on many issues when all they do is attack.... never being positive even with their own opinions. Obviously he didn't learn anything from Hillary's campaign. Negative works, to a point. To much of it pushes people away. Unlike popular perception, campaigns have increasingly been less negative over time. Ah, the good ol days, when stuff like “Ma, Ma, where’s my Pa?”, Jefferson being the anti-christ, and Jackson killing Dickinson in a duel over his wife took place. The first inquiry in your post might make a difference, if any candidate actually took the time to have an in-depth debate with another candidate. However, unlike what your boy claims, there aren't any substantive debates on the issues. Of course, the other half of that statement is "when all they do is attack", which means you are simply looking at the media characterization of McCain. He's doing the same thing Obama is at the moment - going around making speeches in favor of his policies and against the other guy.
erynthered Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 Unlike popular perception, campaigns have increasingly been less negative over time. Ah, the good ol days, when stuff like “Ma, Ma, where’s my Pa?”, Jefferson being the anti-christ, and Jackson killing Dickinson in a duel over his wife took place. The first inquiry in your post might make a difference, if any candidate actually took the time to have an in-depth debate with another candidate. However, unlike what your boy claims, there aren't any substantive debates on the issues. Of course, the other half of that statement is "when all they do is attack", which means you are simply looking at the media characterization of McCain. He's doing the same thing Obama is at the moment - going around making speeches in favor of his policies and against the other guy. Take that back, Whitey!!!!
PastaJoe Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 Remind me how "windfall" profits are defined. Really...no one has a problem with the arbitrary determination that some profits are unfair and therefore must be penalized for the benefit of all? How do you make that determination? Like the old line about pornography, you know it when you see it. You can whine all you want about capitalism, but with rising costs and unemployment at a 4 year high, drastic measures need to be taken like they were when FDR took office if the private sector won't do it voluntarily. The threat of a windfall profit tax is just a shot across the bow of the energy companies to remind them that their days of excess are numbered, and if they don't lower prices to help the economy while still making a profit, then steps will have to be taken. At the very least the first step should be to end their tax breaks.
pBills Posted August 1, 2008 Posted August 1, 2008 Find me any large cap or sizable index fund in a 401(K) that doesn't have shares of big oil. Keep looking. "Take from the rich and give to the poor." This isn't a McCain-based attack...it's an attack by a few people here who think it's wrong to take people's money just because they are making some. Just asking a question... Seems to me the best way for them to deflect would be by saying the public .... "well, gee people we do have huge profits that primarily go to exploration, etc. and we know that you are paying a ton at the pump. But look at that 401(k) - you might have gained $20" Taking people's money? Does that include those who may be in some manipulating the system so that can receive more money?
Recommended Posts