[George_1950]

Here is Obama's plan to lay a $15 Billion tax on oil companies.
Bloomberg.com: News

Does the proposal show that Obama leans more toward capitalism, communism, or fascism? Why?

[excon]

Hello George:

I would have thought you would have found out by now that fascism is the merging of state and business interests. Taxing the oil companies isn't that. It's not even close.

Do I expect you to get it now? No.

excon

[SkyGem]

Here is Obama's plan to lay a $15 Billion tax on oil companies.
Bloomberg.com: News

Does the proposal show that Obama leans more toward capitalism, communism, or fascism? Why?

It appears to have some elements of all three when you take a good look at it but Hillary's plan is more concise and less costly! Take a look at her plan in this press release. HillaryClinton.com - Media Release

[tomder55]

Windfall profit taxes are just a goofy proposal . They would be effective if you were looking to restrict exploration and innovation ;and to further hurt the consumer .They will do nothing but raise prices more. If your goal is lowering prices then taxing the oil companies more than they already are is the worse idea because they will just pass it on to the consumer.The same happened in 1980 when it was last imposed.
Domestic production dropped between 3 percent and 6 percent and dependence on foreign oil increased between 8 percent and 16 percent.Obama of course also claims to want to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, which he says "costs America $800 million a day." I wonder if any of his groupies in the MSM will ask him to explain the contradiction.

The more you tax something, the less you get of it. In this case, that means less domestically discovered and pumped oil and refined gasoline and more foreign oil.But maybe Obama the transformational candidate can transform the laws of economics also.

I don't know which ideology it falls under .All I know is that what they would only do is further the interests of OPEC ,Hugo Chavez ,and Russia.

Even dumber ,as dometic oil companies profits dropped ,there would be a reduction in tax revenues collected from the oil companies.(they already "take";as Evita puts it ;35% of the oil companies profits) .

This is disturbing . Not one of the candidates have yet discussed how they would increase the energy supply ;especially the domestic supply of oil and gas which has been hurt by decades of sillly Congressional restrictions.Instead we get idiocy like windfall profits and gas tax Holidays.

[excon]

Hello again, George:

I'm sure you'll argue, but here is the solution. I know, it's a shame that only I have the answers.

The right doesn't want to conserve. The left doesn't want to drill. We need to do both, instead of just giving the other guy the finger. That's all we're doing nowl

excon

[tomder55]

I 'd like to hear your proposal for conservation that is a short term solution and does not mean restricting growth or more government regulation ? Imposing Café standards ? I think the market will deal with that .SUVs are rapidly going up on blocks .
Frustrated Massachusetts drivers try to sell their gas-guzzlers - The Boston Globe

Long term I'm sure we can find an alternative that doesn't create world wide famine . But that is in the future.

Because I generally agree with his take on energy policy ,I'll tell you what Ron Paul says about the situation:

We must understand that high oil prices are not the result of an unregulated free market. On the contrary, the oil industry is among the most regulated and most subsidized of U.S. industries. Perhaps we need to ask ourselves whether too much government involvement in the oil markets, rather than too little regulation, has kept the supply of refined gasoline artificially low.

Congress must pass legislation like HR 4004, which I introduced earlier this month. HR 4004 takes a comprehensive approach by allowing offshore drilling, eliminating regulations that restrict refining, and suspending harmful tax rules that discourage domestic oil production. If we hope to have a stable, affordable supply of gas, we must allow the free market to operate.

[excon]

I 'd like to hear your proposal for conservation that is a short term solution and does not mean restricting growth or more government regulation ? If we hope to have a stable, affordable supply of gas, we must allow the free market to operate.

Hello again, tom:

In a nutshell, here it is.

Of course, a stable, affordable supply of gas is history. We're running out. That's just so. Like any commodity that becomes rare, the price goes up. There is NO short term solution that deals with a LONG term problem. Growth WILL be restricted - not because of government regulations, but because we're running out of energy.

So, we need to do THREE things: (1) Get that oil is finite, (2) conserve what we use and, (3) utilize the alternatives.

The alternatives aren't just those that are politically acceptable. We need to drill, we need to utilize wind, solar and nuclear energy. We need to plant hemp, the BEST plant to produce ethanol (of course, that'll piss the DEA off) (like I care). Corn is food, not energy.

Frankly, I see the problem as a HUGE opportunity for private enterprise to make jillions. Yes, our old steel based oil economy is over. We're not doing ourselves any favors by trying to support them.

IF that doesn't happen. If we can't cooperate to solve the problem, then we need to nationalize the oil companies. We cannot leave such a valuable asset in private hands anymore. Just like we don't let private enterprise sell us water or tell us which roads we can use. Do I trust that they will look out for the average consumer?? No. You don't either.

excon

[George_1950]

excon: "If we can't cooperate to solve the problem, then we need to nationalize the oil companies. We cannot leave such a valuable asset in private hands anymore. Just like we don't let private enterprise sell us water or tell us which roads we can use. Do I trust that they will look out for the average consumer????? No. You don't either." Excuse me, as I am extremely nauseated...

[DaBaAd]

Here is Obama's plan to lay a $15 Billion tax on oil companies.
Bloomberg.com: News

Does the proposal show that Obama leans more toward capitalism, communism, or fascism? Why?

I agree with Tom who quoted Ron Paul's "A Free Market in Gasoline" as published by LewRockwell.com

We operate in a free market which is the basis of capitalism. Nixon's admin attempted to control prices in the 70's and that led to a trump on production. Reagan's years of deregulation on the industry increased production and thus prices dropped.

I'll submit that pure capitalism "in theory" is what we believe our society operates under, however reality dictates that our society does not fall under a "pure market economy".

There are privately-owned and state-owned enterprises in the mix here which leads to a mixing of economies. The government maintains indirect control in the private market and the private market lobbies government to pass laws to accommodate themselves.

Example : pharmaceuticals and gasoline

and to the extent that our political leaders want to present the illusion that they can manipulate prices is ridiculous.

Lack of competition in the gasoline industry exists. Lack of refining capacity exists. Lack of source exploration exists, a huge national debt is climbing. You couple all of these variables and more together and you mix it with the greed that corporations exhibit and implementations of inefective government controls and you get a deteriorating economy.

But does this mean Obama is pro communism? No. He is not looking to replace the ruling wealthy "bourgeoisie" with the working class. Does this mean he is pro facism? No. He is not looking for government to be the "master" of the people when in fact he is trying to help them.

The three candidates are playing their magical cards on a capitalistic table. Who will triumph? At the end of the day, a skunk by any other name is still a skunk.

[tomder55]

I am of course a sceptic about the Peak oil theory .I will get back to that later .

I think there is plenty of existing oil and coal to last until if and when wind (have you ever lived near a wind turbine farm ? The noise is unbearable) solar and "grass" become technologically and economically viable. Then and only then should we invest in the infrastructure to support the alternatives. They certainly will not be competitive until they can generate energy cheaper than petroleum can.

Nuclear energy we have been woefully short sighted about but I understand the concern about waste storage . I also think we are foolish to use natural gas in conversion to electricity when we have a minimum of a 200 year reserve of coal and the means to scrub the exhaust clean. Natural gas would be much better utilized in the operation of mass transit buses etc.

In 'The Deep Hot Biosphere' Thomas Gold theorized that coal and gas were not the byproduct of decaying dinosaurs and other organic material .Instead they are produced through tectonic forces and constantly being replenished.
Amazon.com: The Deep Hot Biosphere: Thomas Gold: Books

Has that theory gained traction ? Not here for sure ;but I'm not so sure the Russians haven't put the theory to test .According to freeenergynews.com.

"Russians started drilling Kola SG-3, an exploration well which finally reached a staggering world record depth of 40,230 feet. Since then, Russian oil majors including Yukos have quietly drilled more than 310 successful super-deep oil wells, and put them into production. Last year Russia overtook Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest single oil producer, and is now set to completely dominate global oil production and sales for the next century."



Even if the Peak oil theory was correct it only refers to oil that can be had cheaply . There is plenty of oil that can be had in known reserves that we did not have the technology in the past to retrieve.
It is not a lack of resources that is the problem . It is the lack of a business friendly comprehensive policy and comittment to energy independence that is the problem.

[inthebox]

Here is Obama's plan to lay a $15 Billion tax on oil companies.
Bloomberg.com: News

Does the proposal show that Obama leans more toward capitalism, communism, or fascism? Why?

Leans more to a DISASTER.

Selectively taxing profit!! Whoa - isn't that what the British did to colonists with TEA?

Why not tax the "profit" in the entertainment industry? { Hollywood, pro-atheletes, meida owners, porn sites } or on hedge funds? Or the jury verdicts that trial lawyers get?

Okay I'm big oil, the US government is making it very difficult to make money, I'll
Quit and move to another more profitable field or go to another country. No one else is going to fill the vacuum because there is no money to be made.
Result - less domestic oil production. More dependence on foreign oil and higher prices.
- lost domestic jobs.


And what does Obama expect to use the "tax revenue," if any is realized, on?

[George_1950]

inthebox: "And what does Obama expect to use the "tax revenue," if any is realized, on?" Buying votes; what else is there?

[tomder55]

Yes it was proven the last time our idiots we elect decided to tax "windfall profits" that domestic production dropped and we ended up importing more.