Maxine Waters tells us the truth about Obama

[Skull Pilot]

She was talking about herself. Obama's name never came up.

Which are you: an idiot or a liar?

obama's name never came up in GW's speech about appeasement but he sure got pissed over It didn't he??

 

[Skull Pilot]

Most countries that nationalize an industry do so when corporate gluttony gets out of control. We are there. However, the Fifth Amendment requires just compensation when private property is taken for public use, so nationalization does not work here like it does elsewhere.

you all like to rave about record profits when you obviously don't understand that the amount of profit doesn't matter.. it is the MARGIN that matters.

FYI Exxon's profit margin is only about 10% that is NOT excessive by any means. in fact a 10% profit margin is a moderately successful venture.

if you start telling companies what an acceptable level of profit is and then punish them for going over, you are on a path that will surely destroy the economy.

 

[Dogger]

obama's name never came up in GW's speech about appeasement but he sure got pissed over It didn't he??

That's because the White House press office in advance of the speech indicated Bush would be talking about Obama's stance on negotiation. Also, Bush used right wing talking points and straw man arguments that other GOP surrogates have used about Obama directly. Context indicates Bush was slamming Obama; or do you believe Bush was just making up a non-existent straw man himself?

In contrast, the OP pulls Obama's name out of thin air, as ScreamingEagle has conceded. Waters was talking about herself, as the context makes clear.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

On socialism, I have no doubt that dems, with unchecked power, would implement a European style of socialism in this country. However, I would not go as far and say that it would be like the old Soviet Socialists Republic.

 

[Dogger]

On socialism, I have no doubt that dems, with unchecked power, would implement a European style of socialism in this country. However, I would not go as far and say that it would be like the old Soviet Socialists Republic.

History refutes that. Democrats have held the White House and Congress without going to the extreme. Can the GOP make that claim? I'm sure they will, but they cannot do so honestly.

Democrats have no desire or inclination towards socialism, beyond providing a strong social safety net. Both extremes (unfettered capitalism on the right and socialism/communism on the left) are unworkable because neither accounts for human nature. Democrats recognize the danger in pushing an extreme left agenda; Republicans lie about the danger in pushing towards the opposite extreme.

Most Democrats are far more moderate than you have been led to believe. Maxine Waters is an aberration. You have been told we are socialists by GOP talking heads, but you have been told wrong. They have lied to you to win elections.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

History refutes that. Democrats have held the White House and Congress without going to the extreme. Can the GOP make that claim? I'm sure they will, but they cannot do so honestly.

Democrats have no desire or inclination towards socialism, beyond providing a strong social safety net. Both extremes (unfettered capitalism on the right and socialism/communism on the left) are unworkable because neither accounts for human nature. Democrats recognize the danger in pushing an extreme left agenda; Republicans lie about the danger in pushing towards the opposite extreme.

Most Democrats are far more moderate than you have been led to believe. Maxine Waters is an aberration. You have been told we are socialists by GOP talking heads, but you have been told wrong. They have lied to you to win elections.

The only one lying would be you, or , giving you the shadow of a doubt, your just to stupid to know what you babbling about. Your choice as to which it is.

 

[rayboyusmc]

I can't believe I'm about to say this...but, I'd be ok with the government running our oil companies. All those billions in profits could be used to offset a reduction in income taxes.

I think if a movement got started that was seriously pushing the nationalization of the oil industry, we would see suprising and sudden cooperation from them to deliver gas at a more reasonable price.

When capitalism's only moral compass becomes absolute greed, it does not serve the best interests of the country.

 

[JimH52]

The only one lying would be you, or , giving you the shadow of a doubt, your just to stupid to know what you babbling about. Your choice as to which it is.

You think you can make it through one day without calling someone a liar...SARG?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

ScreamingEagle: I will not dignify your spew about socialism with a response. If you want a serious response, ask a serious question.

Claiming that socialism is alive and well in the Dem Party is "spew"? No, that's truth….unless you'd care to explain how the goals of the Democratic Party are all that different from the goals of Socialism.

That was also a deadly serious question about Obama. You didn't want to answer it….because a truthful answer…that Obama is indeed supporting a "windfall tax" on oil companises…. shows him to be exactly the kind of person that Maxine Waters described.

SOCIALISM is a political system where production and distribution (here, the oil companies) are controlled by "the people" (here, Congress) according to "equity and fairness" (here, the windfall tax) instead of having an open and free market.

(I'll bet the next thing you're going to claim is that a windfall tax (i.e., ripping off profits) is not a control upon production and distribution.)

 

[Dogger]

"SOCIALISM is a political system where production and distribution (here, the oil companies) are controlled by "the people" (here, Congress) according to "equity and fairness" (here, the windfall tax) instead of having an open and free market."

The Democrats don't support that. Taxing profit is not the same as controlling production and distribution. Taxing windfall profit could be similar to a progressive corporate tax.

If you want a serious discussion, act like a serious person. Call me a socialist, and I will dismiss you, as I do RetardedGySgt.

 

[Skull Pilot]

"SOCIALISM is a political system where production and distribution (here, the oil companies) are controlled by "the people" (here, Congress) according to "equity and fairness" (here, the windfall tax) instead of having an open and free market."

The Democrats don't support that. Taxing profit is not the same as controlling production and distribution. Taxing windfall profit could be similar to a progressive corporate tax.

If you want a serious discussion, act like a serious person. Call me a socialist, and I will dismiss you, as I do RetardedGySgt.

windfall
Definition

Money received which was not expected and not a direct result of something the recipient did.


Now as far as I can see the term windfall does NOT apply to oil companies or any other company that provides a product or service.

The 10% profit margin made by companies like Exxon is NOT a windfall since it is a direct result of the companies actions in providing a product.


http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008May23/0,4670,MoneyintheTankABRIDGED,00.html

Prices are a function of the open market, the result of futures contracts being traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange, or Nymex, and other exchanges around the world.

Buying the current July crude oil futures contract means you're buying oil that will be delivered by the end of July. But most investors who trade futures have no intention of ever accepting the underlying oil: Like stock investors who frequently buy and sell their holdings, they're simply betting that prices will rise or fall.

Of late, on the Nymex, oil futures have been rising......

Oil companies insist their earnings, measured against revenue, are in line with other industries. On top of that, rising oil prices have sharply cut profit margins for refining, and that hits the major oil companies _ which both pump oil and refine it for use as gasoline.

A giant like Exxon Mobil can handle the blow. Its refining and marketing profits for the first quarter were down 39 percent from a year ago, but Exxon still banked a nearly $11 billion profit because of the hefty prices earned on crude it pumped out of the ground.


here is some enlightening info on how oil prices are set. you will see that oil companies don't set the price and in fact you will see that the price of oil isn't even directly affected by supply and demand rather it is speculation on the NYME and similar exchanges that push the price.

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader11062007.html

"It's a big gambling hall," The Washington Post quotes Fadel Gheit, an oil analyst at Oppenheimer. "This time it's just speculation," Peter C. Fusaro, chairman of Global Change Associates, told the Post, adding, "There's a large bet out there that prices will continue to trend higher. But it's detached from fundamentals because there's no shortage of oil."


Si if a mere 10% profit margin is defined as a windfall(and technically profit derived from a company's action is not a wind fall) then who says how much profit is too much.

what margin of profit is a windfall? and who is going to tell us ? the government? and you all say dems are not socialists

the minute you have the government telling companies how much they can make you can kiss freedom good bye. the government will regulate profits and therefore income but the governments hunger for tax dollars will not diminish and since we would be limited in our income with controls such as a windfall tax where will the government find the tax dollars it craves to continue its expansion of control into our lives? that's right folks you will be taxed ever higher on income that is already controlled by the government. How does sending 70 or 80% of your money to the government sound to you?

 

[Dogger]

and you all say dems are not socialists

Geez. You were so fucking close to getting a response. All that typing, and you blew it for the cheap shot.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Geez. You were so fucking close to getting a response. All that typing, and you blew it for the cheap shot.

I don't expect any response from a dem when the facts are staring them in the face.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

"SOCIALISM is a political system where production and distribution (here, the oil companies) are controlled by "the people" (here, Congress) according to "equity and fairness" (here, the windfall tax) instead of having an open and free market."

The Democrats don't support that. Taxing profit is not the same as controlling production and distribution. Taxing windfall profit could be similar to a progressive corporate tax.

If you want a serious discussion, act like a serious person. Call me a socialist, and I will dismiss you, as I do RetardedGySgt.

Why don't you get that stick outta yer butt and answer the questions. I'll repeat:

1) How is Obama's windfall tax going to help the economy or the value of the Dems own investments?

2) How are the goals of the Dem Party all that different from the goals of Socialism?

Also, your last answer was as expected, as you want to disregard the consequences of a windfall profit tax upon production/distribution. When profits are arbitrarily taken away there is less incentive to invest and thus less energy research and exploration. That in turn leads to less production/distribution. Also, more taxes, as usual, are just passed on to the consumer. So here is another question:

3) Exactly how is more taxation via the "windfall profits" tax going to encourage oil companies to produce more and lessen our cost at the pumps?