Obama: $1000 check to families to be paid by big oil

[Robor]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
"I see your $600 tax-rebate-check-to-buy votes from stupid Americans and raise you $1000 take-from-oil-rich-companies-because-they're-evil promise check; vote for me because I'll change your miserable lives, I'll make you RICH! Don't you want to be rich? Change, yes we can! Gosh Americans are so stupid, you can buy them with nothing more than a song and dance - hey, turn that microphone off".

I'll see your tax refund and raise you same sex marriage and abortion. Oh wait, that was last time around...

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Welcome to 1984.

You already did when you voted Bush in for a second term.

I didnt...

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: CalvinHobbes
I support this, it's like a nation wide profit sharing plan. You could also consider it a dividend payment on our investment in the big oil companies.

But why should non-shareholders benefit from a public companie's profits?

Bad plan. If we have the government stepping in and deciding how much is too much, it is a faaaar reaching arm of the government. Welcome to 1984.

Because the public became 'shareholders' when the oil companies took taxpayer money (which they've been doing for decades).
I didn't hear them complaining then... Just earlier this year Republicans in the Senate threatened a filibuster to protect $18 billion in subsidies. That wasn't 1984? Taking my money to give to companies making record profits?

But oh yeah, but when there's profits involved then the free market card is played. :roll:

What a croc of shit.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
Could someone please tell me exactly how much profit, as a percentage of revenue, does a company need to make in order for it to be considered "windfall profits"?

Its not the percentage that people want to share, its the dollar amount. Get with it.

When the day comes and some other company becomes the top profiteer these stupid asses will want a share of that too.

Absolute bullshit.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: CalvinHobbes
I support this, it's like a nation wide profit sharing plan. You could also consider it a dividend payment on our investment in the big oil companies.

But why should non-shareholders benefit from a public companie's profits?

Bad plan. If we have the government stepping in and deciding how much is too much, it is a faaaar reaching arm of the government. Welcome to 1984.

Because the public became 'shareholders' when the oil companies took taxpayer money (which they've been doing for decades).
I didn't hear them complaining then... Just earlier this year Republicans in the Senate threatened a filibuster to protect $18 billion in subsidies. That wasn't 1984? Taking my money to give to companies making record profits?

But oh yeah, but when there's profits involved then the free market card is played. :roll:

What a croc of shit.

Thanks for not contributing anything.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic
If after 8 years of GW Bush, the most unpopular President in modern history, the Republicans are still able to hold onto the Presidency and the Executive, then yes, that would represent a dramatic unbalancing of power regardless of which party holds a thin majority in Congress.

Nothing will ever get better with these two parties. There will always be one that is worse than the other. But you're not gonna change a damn thing by voting for the one that seems less dangerous. The real danger lies with both parties, and I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Vic
-snip-
Because the public became 'shareholders' when the oil companies took taxpayer money (which they've been doing for decades).
I didn't hear them complaining then... Just earlier this year Republicans in the Senate threatened a filibuster to protect $18 billion in subsidies.

I'm honestly curious about these subsidies you speak of.

Do you (or anyone else) have decent info these? And no, I don't mean a blog or a politicians' statement.

Claims of tax breaks etc for big oil are frequently thrown around. I usually request info on this, yet no one has been able or willing to do so.

Now I see "subsidies" (this is different from tax breaks), and I would like to know about this too.

I may agree that perhaps the oil companies (or whomever recieved them) should return them. But before forming an opion I'd like to know more about them.

For the record, I don't give a damn what they were for - I oppose government subsidies to private corporations.

----------------------------

As to "Windfall Profits Tax", I'm generally opposed to such, and for the record will note that the oil companies are not recieving any "windfall profits" as per the proper definition of that term (they are in the oil business, so extra profits from it are NOT "windfall profits").

However, it may be that the oil companies are making better profits than usual from the high prices. Yet it is not clear how much that is. E.g., those with refining activites and retail gas sales (gas stations) are making LESS money as the result of increased oil prices.

We need solid financial numbers before we can determine if they are making *extra profits*. As noted often, other companies make more profit (or higher margins) than they do.

But if they are makig a extra profit due to changing commody prices - so they ended up *investing well* - isn't that's how it supposed to be? Invest well and profit.

Should those who are likewise benefiting by holding investments/positions in gold also be required to pay a "windfall profit tax"? If not, why not?

I also note that Exxon Mobile has an average tax rate of about 43%. Their marginal rate may be higher. So in the event of *extra profits* they currently keep no more than about 57% of it. The government(s) is already getting a huge chunk, and this needs to be taken into acount.

I do not like setting another precident where the government can decide how much profit you are entitled to, and willy-nilly swoop in a take it ala Robin Hood fashion for redistribution.

What industries will be targeted next in this great march towards a whole new social program?

Fern

 

[Vic]

Fern

re: oil subsidies, take your pick text, It is no secret that oil companies in the US are heavily subsidized, both directly and indirectly.

Or go to thomas.loc.gov and look up HR 5351 from earlier this year, which passed the House but got blocked by Pubs in the Senate because it would have eliminated $18 billion in annual subsidies to oil multinationals.

edit: oops, fixed links

 

[winnar111]

The oil subsidies were provided courtesy of Clinton and Gore.


http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/19/business/oil.php


At a hearing of the Senate Energy Committee several hours before the House vote, investigators and Democratic lawmakers criticized the Interior Department's response to the bungled offshore leases. The Government Accountability Office estimated that the mistake had already cost the Treasury $1 billion and could ultimately cost it $10 billion if the leases remain unchanged.

The leases entitled companies drilling in deep water to avoid royalties on much of their initial production, but in 1998 and 1999 officials of the Clinton administration omitted a standard clause that eliminated the incentive if oil prices climbed above $34 a barrel.

Earl Devaney, the Interior Department's inspector general, told the committee that midlevel administrators first spotted the mistake in 2000 but that top officials did not disclose the issue until The New York Times reported on it in February 2006.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Vic
Fern

re: oil subsidies, take your pick text, It is no secret that oil companies in the US are heavily subsidized, both directly and indirectly.

Or go to thomas.loc.gov and look up HR 5351 from earlier this year, which passed the House but got blocked by Pubs in the Senate because it would have eliminated $18 billion in annual subsidies to oil multinationals.

edit: oops, fixed links

Thanks, I'll ckeck it out.

Fern

 

[mshan]

I think those subsidies were instituted by the Clinton Administration in the 1990s to encourage oil companies to continue to explore and drill for more oil (I think oil prices were in the 20s then).

Congress (Republicans?) have blocked repealing this subsidy, so I think this may just be Obama's political line of attack to achieve same thing.

Instead of oil companies keeping the subsidy and redistributing it to shareholders via dividends and higher stock price via share buy backs, he wants to redistribute this money back to those working families whose disposable income has been completely consumed by increased energy and food prices.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic
The biggest problem IMO with politics in the US is that there's socialists on one side, fascists on the other, and both sides fancy themselves lovers of freedom and democracy. It's a crock.

And look who is talking.

Sometimes you gotta take a stand, bamacre. You can't sit on the sidelines complaining forever and clinging to ideological principle, especially when you have a situation like now where the balance of power is tipping way too far to one side. If the Republicans win this year, despite all the clear damage that Bush and his cronies have done to the country and the ideals it was founded upon, then this country WILL slide into fascist slavery, endless imperialistic wars, and theocracy.

Very true I guess. Better socialism than fascism like you say. I'll vote for Obama and pretend I support freedom and democracy.

I didn't say better socialism than fascism. What I said is that, in this environment, the best way to to support freedom and democracy is by working to keep any single faction from becoming too powerful.

I couldn't agree more. Although this is probably a topic for another thread, I am curious about your conclusion.

The Dems already control the Legislative branch and are looking to pick up more seats. Add in a Dem controlled Executive branch and a single faction has just as much, if not more, power than the mess we just got out of (a single party controlling both branches).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
I couldn't agree more. Although this is probably a topic for another thread, I am curious about your conclusion.

The Dems already control the Legislative branch and are looking to pick up more seats. Add in a Dem controlled Executive branch and a single faction has just as much, if not more, power than the mess we just got out of (a single party controlling both branches).

The dynamic is not that simple. For one thing, the Dems don't control the legislative, they have a slim majority. While the Pubs have 100% control in the executive at this point. Big difference. The Executive also controls all the operations of the govt BTW. The 3 branches of govt are by no means equal, just ask the Supreme Court.

Basically, my issue is that the Pubs have held the Executive for the past 8 years on the basis of lies and aggressive propaganda. They have legions of ultra-loyal followers who believe whatever the party mouthpieces tell them even as the party's actions and agendas are repeatedly in direct contradiction to what their followers believe. These followers have become so zealous in protecting their party loyalty that every lie by the Pubs only strengthens their resolve that much more. It has, in short, become all about egos and emotions and almost nothing about issues and reality. Obama has got nothing on Bush when it comes to being the Messiah of his people (an irony of the Obamessiah rhetoric IMO is that Bush was actually hailed as Moses by the religious right in 2000).
And to them, believing what they are told and not what they see, everything is an upside-down world of lies, where liberalism and actual free markets are the same as communism (but our current heavily socialized economy is a 'free' market), where their freedom of religion is under attack when they're not allowed to push their religious beliefs on other peoples' children in the public schools or to control women's bodies, where freedom can only be protected by invading it and destroying it, where war profiteering is considered patriotic while actually getting back at the people who attacked us on 9/11 is argued against, and (most importantly IMO) where "small government" is growing the size and cost of government faster than any President since FDR during WWII (Bush has actually increased spending faster that FDR did during the New Deal).

IMO any retention of control by such people at this point would be too much. It's like letting the blind guy in the car drive... but worse. However, as they will retain a large measure of control, and their zealous followers will retain their voice and numbers (I expect Obama Derangement Syndrome to break all records for political whining), and as the problems they have caused in this country are far too numerous and deep to be solved by the other party in 4 short years, the Pubs will retain more than sufficient power to keep the Dems in balance. Hell, giving the Dems the election would probably be doing themselves a favor.

OTOH, if the Pubs do retain the Executive this year, then that will be a triumph not for any single party, but for the willful and open use of all their immoral political tactics. Our republic will basically be history.

 

[manowar821]

Why not free education? Seriously, what is more stimulating than free education that has merit in the capitalist world?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Dari

You're wrong. I will give you an extremely simple example. If your profit now is $100 taxed at 25%. Your profit doubles and I double your tax to 50%. So your profit increases nevertheless, will you increase your prices to pickup lost profit? Let's say your profit decreases, will you still increase prices? In a competitive environment you won't lest you want your customers going elsewhere. In neither case has your cost increased one penny.

in a competitive environment your competitors face the same tax structure.

draw the supply and demand graphs. some of the tax is paid by the consumer, some of the tax is paid by the supplier.

i may decide it's better to be in another industry depending on my cost of capital. my return on investment may not be good enough anymore with that new tax rate.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Vic
I can't disagree here except to say that it's a wee bit disingenuous to be attacking Democrats on this issue, considering that most right-wing sources see excessively wasteful consumption as some kind of god-given right, and tend to attack Democrats for merely suggesting we should be more efficient/recycle/etc.

Which is why I never mentioned the D's or the R's. Both of them suck just about equally in my mind. I have no problem with D's recommending that we recycle or improve efficiency. Personally, I recycle darn near everything, and I just submitted a proposal to help improve efficiency of everything from windows to airplanes. However, it's also not necessarily a great idea to try to force these issues under penalty of law.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
My point is simple and revolves around a single quote. "Choose your battles wisely."

Is see your point, but what you are suggesting will never happen until a replacement becomes readily available at a reasonable cost and is convenient. It is not just us who are to blame either. It is the entire world. So, stop wasting your time and everyone else's time by trying to argue your point as if it were some sort of realistic solution for this particular case.

I'll post what I like and you can read it or not. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read my posts. We are all to blame - myself included. I have created a demand for oil since I started driving about 11 years ago. I still drive. I pay what gas costs because that's what it costs and it's worth it to me to keep paying that to get where I want to go. If I didn't think it was worth it or couldn't afford it, then I would find another way.

So, stop making excuses and whining and accept responsibility for your actions. You have suckled at the teat of cheap energy. Now you're pissed because other people from around the world are doing the same and you don't think it's fair that the oil companies are meeting this demand and making a profit at the same time. Don't like it? Don't use their product. Your whining accomplishes absolutely nothing.

 

[winnar111]

The Messiah has changed his mind.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080801/ap_on_el_pr/obama

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.

Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.

Guess he sees the writing on the wall!

 

[Socio]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Dari

You're wrong. I will give you an extremely simple example. If your profit now is $100 taxed at 25%. Your profit doubles and I double your tax to 50%. So your profit increases nevertheless, will you increase your prices to pickup lost profit? Let's say your profit decreases, will you still increase prices? In a competitive environment you won't lest you want your customers going elsewhere. In neither case has your cost increased one penny.

in a competitive environment your competitors face the same tax structure.

draw the supply and demand graphs. some of the tax is paid by the consumer, some of the tax is paid by the supplier.

i may decide it's better to be in another industry depending on my cost of capital. my return on investment may not be good enough anymore with that new tax rate.

Or worse, one may decide to move said business out of the country along with the jobs to a country where it can still garner the profits, pays less tax and as a bonus get lower wage employees.

This is really just an incentive package for US companies to leave the US borders.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: winnar111
The Messiah has changed his mind.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080801/ap_on_el_pr/obama

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.

Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.

Guess he sees the writing on the wall!

You mean he was able to get his compromises in.

Welcome to politics!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Vic
I can't disagree here except to say that it's a wee bit disingenuous to be attacking Democrats on this issue, considering that most right-wing sources see excessively wasteful consumption as some kind of god-given right, and tend to attack Democrats for merely suggesting we should be more efficient/recycle/etc.

Which is why I never mentioned the D's or the R's. Both of them suck just about equally in my mind. I have no problem with D's recommending that we recycle or improve efficiency. Personally, I recycle darn near everything, and I just submitted a proposal to help improve efficiency of everything from windows to airplanes. However, it's also not necessarily a great idea to try to force these issues under penalty of law.

Well, we're agreed on that. Unfortunately, in a 'free' market with an undereducated populace clinging to wasteful overconsumption as a 'right,' those educated consumers like you and me are the ones who end up getting most severely punished.
So while I don't condone forcing these issues under penalty of law, I do not think that, amidst all the other handouts, subsidies, breaks, and other manipulative policies, we should consider doing something to encourage some form of sensible, rational incentive to be thrifty/efficient/conservative, whatever.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Vic
Well, we're agreed on that. Unfortunately, in a 'free' market with an undereducated populace clinging to wasteful overconsumption as a 'right,' those educated consumers like you and me are the ones who end up getting most severely punished.
So while I don't condone forcing these issues under penalty of law, I do not think that, amidst all the other handouts, subsidies, breaks, and other manipulative policies, we should consider doing something to encourage some form of sensible, rational incentive to be thrifty/efficient/conservative, whatever.

Agreed. I'm still waiting for the gov to bail me out from my student loan debt. I should have bought a house and taken out a second mortgage to pay for school instead of doing it the legitimate way.

 

[hellokeith]

Intel has been making really big profits. Obama should take those profits and buy every person a new computer with an AMD processor in it and Linux preinstalled.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Dari

You're wrong. I will give you an extremely simple example. If your profit now is $100 taxed at 25%. Your profit doubles and I double your tax to 50%. So your profit increases nevertheless, will you increase your prices to pickup lost profit? Let's say your profit decreases, will you still increase prices? In a competitive environment you won't lest you want your customers going elsewhere. In neither case has your cost increased one penny.

in a competitive environment your competitors face the same tax structure.

draw the supply and demand graphs. some of the tax is paid by the consumer, some of the tax is paid by the supplier.

i may decide it's better to be in another industry depending on my cost of capital. my return on investment may not be good enough anymore with that new tax rate.

If the environment is competitive then you would know better than to pass the tax onto your customers. If the market is highly inelastic then most of it is paid for by consumers, the opposite is true if it's elastic and/or there is many competition. But we're talking about taxation on PROFITS, not revenue so the supply/demand graph may be more complicated than you imply. Furthermore, by leaving the industry, you'd be an idiot to leave money on the table because you're getting taxed more. Like I said before, this tax would mostly hit long-term investment or dividends to shareholders.

BTW, I disagreed with you because you disagreed with Eskimopy, who was correct (the tax won't simply be passed on). You could've been correct as well but you should've made a finer point of your argument.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Intel has been making really big profits. Obama should take those profits and buy every person a new computer with an AMD processor in it and Linux preinstalled.

:laugh: