I'm so tired of hearing the folks on the left complain about the evil oil companies and the huge profits they are making.

Has anyone here, heard from the left, any complaints about the federal taxes Exxon paid in the same time as the latest profit report?

For some reason, this never gets a single mention.

The FACT is, they paid over THREE TIMES as much in Federal Taxes as they made in profit.

Now that is what the left calls EVIL!

And this crap with Nancy Pelosi, what nerve this female dog in heat has, to try to shut down the floor of the house, while a representitive from Arizona was speaking, banging her gavel and even going so far as to turn off the lights!

How about it Dems or Libs?

Aren't you proud of your leaders who just ignore what the American people want, and just decide to play God instead of listening to what the people they represent really want?

After all, these socialists are so much better than the average American, or so they believe.

If nothing else, don't they realize that they are pissing off MANY of the very people who support them?

It really is unbelievable.

Today I heard that Obama wants to hand out $500. Simulus tax to American individuals and $1,000. To American families that qualify--same ones that benefited from Bush's simulus tax.
Thing is he 'feels' the big oil companies should be the ones that back the tax. Wonder what that will do to the gas prices at the pump.

Exactly!

What ever they do to increase the money taken from the oil companies in higher taxes, will simply be passed on to us at the pump.

Gee, three times their profit is not enough for these money grabbers?

Obama is an idiot. A clever, silver tongued, sneaky, manipulative idiot.

Obama is an idiot. A clever, silver tongued, sneaky, manipulative idiot.
What about all those voters out there? He knocked-off Hillary, after all.

Wonder what that will do to the gas prices at the pump.
Please accept this as a 'greenie' since I can't rate you! The principle of 'unintended consequences' is something Democrats do not recognize, just 'judge me by my intentions'.

Obama is an idiot. A clever, silver tongued, sneaky, manipulative idiot.
Obama is also a thief.

Hey! Obama has THE solution to the oil shortage. If EVERYONE would inflate their tires to the proper pressure, and keep their engines in tune, it will SOLVE the problem!
Those of you who believe that, please contact me as I have some nice ocean front property near Phoenix that I am offering a discount on for the next 30 days.

Do I dare repeat myself...

Obama is an idiot. A clever, silver tongued, sneaky, manipulative idiot.

Silver tongued

YouTube - Barack Obama Stuttering Uh Montage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp0hU1THjuc)
:rolleyes:

OK kiddos, guys and gals, all the zingers about Obama being an "idiot, a thief, or stuttering" are not convincing. I'd rather hear reasonable arguments. I've read on a few sites that had blogs and articles where arguments against windfall taxation has been articulated intelligently to some degree. However, I know some of you voted for Dubya, not once, but twice! So thank yourselves for part of the mess. It was none other than George W. Bush that said he would make us a country of "haves and have-mores." And as usual enough Americans bought into the trickle down voodoo economics that would had even made Reagan sick. But yet, here we are! It's 2008 and another election year. Well the "haves" actually have-less, and the "have-mores" are laughing all the way to the bank. The oil companies made better than the average in comparison of the S&P 500. I recall that was around a 8.5 % average profit and oil companies did about 9.7 % for 2007, or there abouts. Obviously the problem is not that Obama wants to help job sectors in keeping police, firefighters, and the schools, that are now having to cut budgets left and right (see below in italics). It's the fact that he goes after oil companies for their profits alone when he should add other fat cats, otherwise known as Dubya's "have-mores" to help out.

Here's a starter list:


2007 Net Income

JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM)
$15.4 billion

Bank of America
$14.8 billion

Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS)
$11.4 billion

AIG
$6.2 billion

Citigroup
$3.6 billion



Company

2007 Net Income

ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM)
$40.6 billion

Chevron (NYSE: CVX)
$18.7 billion

ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP)
$11.9 billion

Valero (NYSE: VLO)
$5.2 billion

Marathon Oil (NYSE: MRO)
$4.0 billion





"At least 29 states are now facing budget deficits in the 2009 fiscal year. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) recently found that U.S. states will face a combined $53 billion in budget shortfalls in 2008 – 2009. States have already begun cutting spending for essential services like police, firefighters, and elementary schools, in response and could be forced to raise taxes if they get no assistance. State and local governments have also started to downsize their workforces and cut back on worker benefits. Seven states have already frozen salaries or decreased retirement fund contributions this year. When states are forced to cut back on services and lay off workers during a time of economic weakness, it not only undermines the safety and stability of their residents, but further exacerbates the downward economic spiral. This is particularly true in areas hardest-hit by the housing crisis where communities are reeling from declining property tax revenues. Obama's emergency plan would provide $25 billion in relief to state and local governments, to ensure that these authorities can continue to maintain essential services for their citizens and to support their payrolls without having to increase taxes on their citizens. State and local governments account for over 20 million payroll jobs in the United States, and Obama's stimulus would boost domestic demand by ensuring that this sector of the labor market does not shrink unnecessarily. This fund will also enable states to continue providing foreclosure counseling, refinancing opportunities and other innovative services to help struggling families stay in their homes and help forestall property value declines in hard-hit neighborhoods. Finally, the fund will ensure that states have sufficient resources to cushion the impact of high energy prices on the cost of home heating, so families are not left in the cold this fall and winter.

$25 Billion in a Jobs and Growth Fund to replenish the highway trust fund, prevent cutbacks in road and bridge maintenance and fund new, fast-tracked projects to repair schools. These steps would save more than 1 million jobs while making a down payment on Obama's growth-enhancing long-run infrastructure and energy efficiency proposals. Another area where the contraction of state budgets is costing jobs and undermining demand is in rebuilding our schools and modernizing our roads and bridges. On the other hand, the cost of inputs for building roads and bridges has jumped in recent years. The producer price for highway construction has increased 70 percent since 2004. Meanwhile, declining tax receipts have sapped the highway trust fund and are threatening road and bridge construction projects. As a result, states have been forced to stop work on current infrastructure projects and delay implementation of new projects as well. Coupled with the fallout in the housing market, this trend has driven substantial job loss in the construction industry—with 600,000 construction related jobs lost in the past two years. If John McCain's plan to divert billion more from the Highway Trust Fund for a gas tax holiday was passed, even more jobs would be lost. The Obama emergency plan would make $25 billion immediately available in a Jobs and Growth Fund to help ensure that in-progress and fast-tracked infrastructure projects are not sidelined, and to ensure that schools can meet their energy costs and undertake key repairs starting this fall.

First, Obama will replenish the highway trust fund, which currently funds hundreds of in-shortfall. Second, at a time when 76 percent of American public schools have structural deficiencies and schools in at least 16 states are being forced to move to 4-day school weeks this fall because of high energy costs and budget cuts, no one can be satisfied with the state of America's public school infrastructure. A federal commitment to ensuring in-progress projects go forward and fast-tracked school repairs are undertaken serves as a triple win, generating capital deployment and job creation to boost our economy in the near-term, enhancing U.S. competitiveness in the longer term, and improving the environment by adopting energy efficient school repairs. In total, Obama's $25 billion investment will result in 1 million jobs created or saved, while helping to turn our economy around. The Jobs and Growth fund is meant to avoid cuts in the short run and fund urgent, high-priority infrastructure investments. It is a complement to Obama's long-run, fully paid-for proposal to establish an infrastructure bank that will leverage $6 billion per year into $35 billion in new investments, and help improve the competitiveness and energy efficiency of our economy in the years ahead."

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 6/30/08, 29 States Face Total Budget Shortfall of At Least $48 Billion in 2009, updated 6/30/08 (http://www.cbpp.org/1-15-08sfp.htm)
National Conference of State Legislatures, State Budget Update, June 2008, available at: National Conference of State Legislatures (http://www.ncsl.org).


PS. Any unwanted or unneeded stimulus checks given out by any president administration, just let me know.

OK kiddos, guys and gals, all the zingers about Obama being an "idiot, a thief, or stuttering" are not convincing. I'd rather hear reasonable arguments. I've read on a few sites that had blogs and articles where arguments against windfall taxation has been articulated intelligently to some degree. However, I know some of you voted for Dubya, not once, but twice! So thank yourselves for part of the mess. It was none other than George W. Bush that said he would make us a country of "haves and have-mores." And as usual enough Americans bought into the trickle down voodoo economics that would had even made Reagan sick. But yet, here we are! It's 2008 and another election year. Well the "haves" actually have-less, and the "have-mores" are laughing all the way to the bank. The oil companies made better than the average in comparison of the S&P 500. I recall that was around a 8.5 % average profit and oil companies did about 9.7 % for 2007, or there abouts. Obviously the problem is not that Obama wants to help job sectors in keeping police, firefighters, and the schools, that are now having to cut budgets left and right (see below in italics). It's the fact that he goes after oil companies for their profits alone when he should add other fat cats, otherwise known as Dubya's "have-mores" to help out.


I don't believe the constitution guarantees that everyone will be a "have" - but they can pursue it. :)





Here's a starter list:


2007 Net Income

JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM)
$15.4 billion

Bank of America
$14.8 billion

Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS)
$11.4 billion

AIG
$6.2 billion

Citigroup
$3.6 billion



Company

2007 Net Income

ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM)
$40.6 billion

Chevron (NYSE: CVX)
$18.7 billion

ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP)
$11.9 billion

Valero (NYSE: VLO)
$5.2 billion

Marathon Oil (NYSE: MRO)
$4.0 billion



How about hollywood celebrities or pro atheletes or hedge fund managers.

This is the politics of class envy.





"At least 29 states are now facing budget deficits in the 2009 fiscal year. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) recently found that U.S. states will face a combined $53 billion in budget shortfalls in 2008 – 2009. States have already begun cutting spending for essential services like police, firefighters, and elementary schools, in response and could be forced to raise taxes if they get no assistance. State and local governments have also started to downsize their workforces and cut back on worker benefits. Seven states have already frozen salaries or decreased retirement fund contributions this year. When states are forced to cut back on services and lay off workers during a time of economic weakness, it not only undermines the safety and stability of their residents, but further exacerbates the downward economic spiral. This is particularly true in areas hardest-hit by the housing crisis where communities are reeling from declining property tax revenues. Obama’s emergency plan would provide $25 billion in relief to state and local governments, to ensure that these authorities can continue to maintain essential services for their citizens and to support their payrolls without having to increase taxes on their citizens. State and local governments account for over 20 million payroll jobs in the United States, and Obama’s stimulus would boost domestic demand by ensuring that this sector of the labor market does not shrink unnecessarily. This fund will also enable states to continue providing foreclosure counseling, refinancing opportunities and other innovative services to help struggling families stay in their homes and help forestall property value declines in hard-hit neighborhoods. Finally, the fund will ensure that states have sufficient resources to cushion the impact of high energy prices on the cost of home heating, so families are not left in the cold this fall and winter.

$25 Billion in a Jobs and Growth Fund to replenish the highway trust fund, prevent cutbacks in road and bridge maintenance and fund new, fast-tracked projects to repair schools. These steps would save more than 1 million jobs while making a down payment on Obama’s growth-enhancing long-run infrastructure and energy efficiency proposals. Another area where the contraction of state budgets is costing jobs and undermining demand is in rebuilding our schools and modernizing our roads and bridges. On the other hand, the cost of inputs for building roads and bridges has jumped in recent years. The producer price for highway construction has increased 70 percent since 2004. Meanwhile, declining tax receipts have sapped the highway trust fund and are threatening road and bridge construction projects. As a result, states have been forced to stop work on current infrastructure projects and delay implementation of new projects as well. Coupled with the fallout in the housing market, this trend has driven substantial job loss in the construction industry—with 600,000 construction related jobs lost in the past two years. If John McCain’s plan to divert billion more from the Highway Trust Fund for a gas tax holiday was passed, even more jobs would be lost. The Obama emergency plan would make $25 billion immediately available in a Jobs and Growth Fund to help ensure that in-progress and fast-tracked infrastructure projects are not sidelined, and to ensure that schools can meet their energy costs and undertake key repairs starting this fall.

First, Obama will replenish the highway trust fund, which currently funds hundreds of in-shortfall. Second, at a time when 76 percent of American public schools have structural deficiencies and schools in at least 16 states are being forced to move to 4-day school weeks this fall because of high energy costs and budget cuts, no one can be satisfied with the state of America’s public school infrastructure. A federal commitment to ensuring in-progress projects go forward and fast-tracked school repairs are undertaken serves as a triple win, generating capital deployment and job creation to boost our economy in the near-term, enhancing U.S. competitiveness in the longer term, and improving the environment by adopting energy efficient school repairs. In total, Obama’s $25 billion investment will result in 1 million jobs created or saved, while helping to turn our economy around. The Jobs and Growth fund is meant to avoid cuts in the short run and fund urgent, high-priority infrastructure investments. It is a complement to Obama’s long-run, fully paid-for proposal to establish an infrastructure bank that will leverage $6 billion per year into $35 billion in new investments, and help improve the competitiveness and energy efficiency of our economy in the years ahead."

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 6/30/08, 29 States Face Total Budget Shortfall of At Least $48 Billion in 2009, updated 6/30/08 (http://www.cbpp.org/1-15-08sfp.htm)
National Conference of State Legislatures, State Budget Update, June 2008, available at: National Conference of State Legislatures (http://www.ncsl.org).


PS. Any unwanted or unneeded stimulus checks given out by any president administration, just let me know.


So Obama is going to personally pay for this?

Or is this all code for raising taxes on the taxpayor?

It is up to state and local government politicians to budget and spend money wisely, not make promises on the backs of taxpayors so they can get elected or re-elected.

Obama is an idiot. A clever, silver tongued, sneaky, manipulative idiot.
Today I heard that Obama wants to hand out $500...
Obama is also a thief.
Do I dare repeat myself ... Obama is an idiot. A clever, silver tongued, sneaky, manipulative idiot.
And you are of course all brilliant and enlightened democracy supporters, and you "weigh" every politician on your race-less color-less gender-less party-less balance of "true honorable concern" instead of on your hypocritical steer produce scale...


·:D

·.........:D

·....................:D

·...............................:D

·..........................................:D

·

And you are of course all brilliant and enlightened democracy supporters, and you "weigh" every politician on your race-less color-less gender-less party-less balance of "true honorable concern" instead of on your hypocritical steer produce scale .....



YES WE DO "weigh" every politician on your race-less color-less gender-less party-less balance of "true honorable concern"
AND GUESS WHAT
THEY ALL ARE IN THE SAME RED ZONE!

Hello again:

IF oil is a strategic commodity that is running out, the government WILL nationalize it sooner or later. No country will leave it's future to private companies. We won't either. IF we're going to do this, lets do it now.

excon

Hello again:

IF oil is a strategic commodity that is running out, the government WILL nationalize it sooner or later. No country will leave it's future to private companies. We won't either. IF we're going to do this, lets do it now.

excon

Either way, private or nationalized, if we don't get started drilling now, like we should have done 30 years ago, it won't matter who is in control.

Drill here, Drill NOW, Pay less!

Do any of you really believe that we would be better off now if either Gore or Kerry had been elected? I REALLY doubt it myself.

As to oil, it may soon become irrelevant. REALLY. Already a lot of people are using homemade hydrogen generators on their cars to boost gas mileage, and there are patents that indicate that we may SOON be able to operate our cars and homes on hydrogen produced by our own gas generators. The latest info has been placed in the public domain so that it can't be suppressed. Anyway, I'm keeping my ears and mind open. Hope springs eternal!

So Obama is going to personally pay for this?

Or is this all code for raising taxes on the taxpayor?

It is up to state and local government politicians to budget and spend money wisely, not make promises on the backs of taxpayors so they can get elected or re-elected.


How do you think utlimatly pays? Think about it and then tell me who can afford this the most.

How do you think anything utlimatly gets paid?! Think about it and then tell me who can afford this the most.
The things that I have to pay, I have to pay myself.

I don't get to go to all my neighbors homes, take some of their money when they aren't looking, and then redistribute it to other sources.

Do you really believe that paying three times the profit, in federal taxes is not enough?

Just another socialistic attack on the evil free market system, and the evil corporations that create jobs.

I don't believe the constitution gurantees that everyone will be a "have" - but they can pursue it. :)

Three words, "We the people." :)





How about hollywood celebrities or pro atheletes or hedge fund managers.


They are already accounted for already under Obama's tax plan by income bracket.

The things that I have to pay, I have to pay myself.

I don't get to go to all my neighbors homes, take some of their money when they aren't looking, and then redistribute it to other sources.

Do you really believe that paying three times the profit, in federal taxes is not enough?

Just another socialistic attack on the evil free market system, and the evil corporations that create jobs.

No. I'd expect you to help your neighbor, if possible, not steal from them. You're mentality is backwards on the issue. BTW I included a list of others that could help and are making large profits, other than oil companies. I wish I could afford to pay federal taxes fives times over, that would mean I making a huge profit.

No. I'd expect you to help your neighbor, if possible, not steal from them.

Like Obama's huge tax increases, that will surely help those that didn't do a single thing to earn the money, that will be taken away from someone who did, and given to them.

So by your premise, Obama is stealing too?

Like Obama's huge tax increases, that will surely help those that didn't do a single thing to earn the money, that will be taken away from someone who did, and given to them.

So by your premise, Obama is stealing too?


Well that's you. More people laid off the better.. huh? I'd rather keep policemen, fire fighters, teachers, and nurses employed because they earn their keep, feed their families, and it's a benefit to the community. Maybe we can even get some people back to work that's already laid off. Imagine that. But you can't have that. Nope. Because "Obama," according to you, and a few others, would be stealing.

No. I'd expect you to help your neighbor, if possible, not steal from them. You're mentality is backwards on the issue. BTW I included a list of others that could help and are making large profits, other than oil companies. I wish I could afford to pay federal taxes fives times over, that would mean I making a huge profit.


But how did profit, no matter what percent or size, become such an evil in the eyes of Obama and a percentage of the population?

Is not profit a driving force that motivates producers to bring needed goods and services to the market?


If there is no profit motive, who is going to produce?
The government? What did the communist governments export here? That is right, the YUGO.




Who is going to work for free?

Who is going to suffer from the lack of goods and services that leads to shortages and higher prices?

That's right, you and me!

Oh, and another thing, don't you think that these evil oil companies, if taxed enough, will just leave the US and take their jobs and tax revenue, and go foreign?

"Evil in Obama's eyes?" Having policemen, fire fighters, teachers, and nurses employed, is evil? Really??

They are already accounted for already under Obama's tax plan by income bracket.[/QUOTE]
I do believe that the first man to propose a heavy, graduated income tax for the USA was Karl Marx.
Stamp out organized crime. Abolish the IRS!

I do believe that the first man to propose a heavy, graduated income tax for the USA was Karl Marx.

Stamp out organized crime. Abolish the IRS!



Ideally if we could turn back time, I'd keep it limited to a consumption tax and a luxury tax system of sorts. Personally I think inheritance taxes are a crime. I would much rather be taxed on what I spend not what I earn. But unfortunately American history took many twists and now we find ourselves compensating other directions often to make up for shortcomings. Yes. Although I don't think it is practical currently, I do agree with reforming the IRS until we can eventually abolish it.


Concerning Karl Marx, if you're really bored and have the time, read this:

Capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism)

"A term denoting a distinct form of social organization, based on generalized commodity production, in which there is private ownership and/or control of the means of production. The word 'capitalism' is a relative latecomer in social science, with the OED citing its first use in 1854 ('capitalist' in 1792). Originally popularized by Marxist writers (Marx preferred to speak of the capitalist mode of production or bourgeois society), it is a term which has increasingly gained credence across the political spectrum, although this has inevitably produced inconsistency in its employment. At least three present-day usages are discernible.

Karl Marx sought the essence of capitalism neither in rational calculation nor in production for markets with the desire for gain (a system termed by Marx, 'simple commodity production'). For Marx capitalism is a historically specific mode of production, in which capital (in its many forms) is the principal means of production. A mode of production is not defined by technology but refers to the way in which the conditions of production are owned and controlled and to the social relations between individuals which result from their connection with the process of production. Each mode of production is distinguished by how the dominant class, controlling the conditions of production, ensures the extraction of the surplus from the dominated class. As Marx clarifies in a famous passage, the really distinctive feature of each society is not how the bulk of labour is done, but how the extraction of the surplus from the immediate producer is secured: 'It is in each case the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the immediate producers … in which we find the innermost secret, the hidden basis of the entire social edifice, and hence also the political form of the relationship of sovereignty and dependence, in short the specific form of state in each case' (Capital, vol. iii, ch. 47). Capitalism is thus perceived as a transient form of class society in which the production of capital predominates, and dominates all other forms of production (generalized commodity production). Capital is not a thing, not simply money or machinery, but money or machinery inserted within a specific set of social relations whose aim is the expansion of value (the accumulation of capital). Capitalism is therefore built on a social relation of struggle between the bourgeoisie and the working class. Its historical prerequisite was the concentration of ownership in the hands of the ruling class and the consequential and 'bloody' emergence of a propertyless class for whom the sale of labour-power is their only source of livelihood. The distinction between the sale of labour and the sale of labour-power (the capacity to labour) is crucial, Marx argues, for understanding how all profit derives from the unpaid and therefore exploited labour of the worker. Capitalism therefore combines formal and legal equality in exchange with subordination and exploitation in production. The existence of trade, rational calculation, production for the market, the use of money, and the presence of financiers is not enough to constitute a capitalist society. For Marx, capitalism is based on a specific form of private property which enables capital to yoke labour to create surplus value in production. Like Weber, Marx portrayed capitalist society as the most developed historical organization of production. Unlike Weber, Marx envisaged that class struggle would intensify and produce an ever-expanding union of workers who, as a self-conscious, independent movement of the majority, would rise up and abolish capitalism.

All periodizations of capitalism are problematical. Whilst Marx claims that in Western Europe bourgeois society began to evolve in the sixteenth century and was making giant strides towards maturity in the eighteenth century, Karl Polanyi concludes that capitalism did not emerge until the Poor Law Reform Act of 1834. Capital existed in many forms—commercial capital and money-dealing capital—long before industrialization. For this reason the period between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries is often referred to as the merchant capital phase of capitalism. Industrial capitalism, which Marx dates from the last third of the eighteenth century, finally establishes the domination of the capitalist mode of production.


For most analysts, mid- to late-nineteenth-century Britain is seen as the apotheosis of the laissez-faire phase of capitalism. This phase took off in Britain in the 1840s with the Repeal of the Corn Laws, and the Navigation Acts, and the passing of the Banking Act. In line with the teachings of classical political economy (Adam Smith and David Ricardo), the state adopted a liberal form which encouraged competition and fostered the development of a 'self-regulating' market society. Liberal and conservative thinkers have been keen to identify this particular phase of capitalism with the essence of capitalism itself. This has encouraged some theorists to dispense with the term completely when describing societies in the post-1945 period. Hence during the post-war long boom (1950-70), an explosion of terms—industrial society; post-industrial society; welfare statism; post-capitalist society—threatened to displace the centrality of the concept of capitalism. The waves of economic and political crises experienced since this period, however, led many commentators to reinstate the term, particularly under the influence of the new right (Hayek and Friedman). In contrast to liberals, writers in the Marxist tradition understand twentieth-century developments in terms of the movement from the laissez-faire phase of capitalism to the monopoly stage of capitalism. On the basis of Lenin's famous pamphlet, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, the monopoly stage is said to exist when: the export of capital alongside the export of commodities becomes of prime importance; banking and industrial capital merge to form finance capital; production and distribution are centralized in huge trusts and cartels; international monopoly combines of capitalists divide up the world into spheres of interest; and national states seek to defend capitalist interests thus perpetuating the likelihood of war (see also imperialism).

Since the extension of the franchise in nineteenth-century Britain there has been a hotly contested debate on the relationship between democracy and capitalism. The experience of the twentieth century, however, shows that there are a variety of political forms—liberal democratic, social democratic, fascist, statist, republican, monarchical—which can accompany capitalist economies. This constitutes the basis for the study of the state in capitalism.

Although the world market has always formed the backdrop to the development of capitalism, a number of recent changes, associated with both the 'globalization of capital', and the demise of the Soviet Union, have strengthened the claim that capitalism should now be viewed as a world system. (See also Anglo-Saxon Capitalism, Rhenish Capitalism.)"