The big evil oil corporations!

The Coffee Shop
21

I don’t think an Carter style excise tax makes sense but and excess profit tax targeted at oil companies who are profiteering at record levels at the expense of the greater US economy and at a time when the US government really needs the cash can be a good idea. This is a well known wartime fiscal instrument (put in place during nearly every other war in recent US history) and will unlikely affect the price of oil.

These funds could help the right fund their war in Iraq which will take trillions of dollars for many years to come. Even Reagan didn’t end the windfall tax put in place by Carter until the late 80s when things were stabile with Oil because of the need for the funds. Our government doesn’t have any money left to fund the war. Although if the tax does get put into place, I think it makes sound economic sense to take that money and invest in domestic businesses that produce clean renewable energy resources. This will directly benefit the American people, create jobs, and stimulate the economy while Iraq does none of those things. There are several economic examples of where this approach has worked.

And for those who say it’s not a few who prosper, I would argue otherwise. Take a look at the insider trading online. There are relatively few insiders who are caching in on millions and millions of dollars of these profits while the rest of us (probably 95%) who have some exxon in a mutual fund take a measly few bucks from that profit. The chairman takes almost a half a billion and you really want to cut the guy a break? These funds could be used for the greater good of the country in the face of a slipping economy.

22

Why go through all that? Why not just expropriate the oil companies the way Hugo Chavez did?

Certainly the government is much more capable of making equitable resource allocation decisions in such critical sections of the economy.

23

Although I will back you up on the idea that Flanagan is trying to make everyone think that the two are trying to make you believe the oil companies have paid zero tax…if that is clear as mud…without doubt Clinton has stated on many occasions she wants to tap into that “profit” though.

~Matt

24

Who else would do it? If I hear you correctly then the corporation would volunteer to help fund the war? How do you fund a war without taxes? Is it possible?

25

Judging by your response, you didn’t hear me at all.

I am guessing that the government probably rakes in four or five dollars in oil related taxes and fees for every one dollar the oil companies make. Apparently it is not enough for you that the government takes 80% of the profits, you want it to be 90 to 95% or so. Why not just make it 100% and expropriate the companies? What is the downside to that? The government can apparently use the money more wisely, like by sending everyone a $600 check and other very constructive expenditures.

It isn’t enough that we have just about the highest corporate taxes in the world, or do we need to tax particular profit making activities by people we don’t like even more?

26

When the Republicans start a war, where do they get the money to fund it? The latest Republican war spending proposal is costing us around $150 billion more than the height of the Vietnam war spending (adjusted). I ask again how do the Republicans plan to fund their wild spending? Is there a plan or shall we just remain in denial?

Here is what is going to happen. You and I are going to pay for it either way: through heavy borrowing induced inflation or through focused taxation. Which is going to hurt the country more, focused taxation on a corporation that is making record profits on the edge of a slipping economy, or by destroying the value of the dollar for everyone? History has shown that when you deflate the dollar, it is the middle class (who are already fighting for their life) that pays the most, not the ultra wealthy. If you guys don’t want to pay for the war you started, then why not just end it? Then you can avoid deflation AND lower taxes.

27

I guess you don’t want to answer a question. Par for the course in the LR. I wouldn’t want to defend your proposed “tax” if I were called on it either.

Why is it that it is the war that needs to be funded and never anything else? Why don’t you question the Farm Bill, Earmarks, Medicaid prescription drug benefit, Medicare, the “Stimulus” bill, the Education Department or Social Security?

Obama and Hillary want to move to mandatory Universal Health Care. The cost of the War is chump change compared to that, and last I read the Constitution, Defense is actually a core responsibility of the Federal Government, but free Viagra to seniors wasn’t mentioned.

Perhaps it was overlooked by the Founders.

28

…but free Viagra to seniors wasn’t mentioned.

Actually, Jefferson very much wanted free Viagra for all seniors, but he met up with a lot of opposition from the Federalists.

…all kidding aside, do any Republicans have a plan to pay for or are they just hoping that it’ll all work out at some point. Cut taxes to increase economic growth leading to higher tax revenues (I think Bush I called this VooDoo economics)…ok, fine. Lets just, for argument sake, say this works. But when you still run record deficits, the debt only gets bigger, not smaller. I’ve ben very disapointed that neither side has really addressed a viable plan.

29

The number of Republicans with the ideas you request is quite large, it is just that very few of them hold elective office. Even 10 years ago my answer would have been very different.

All conservatives, at least fiscal conservatives advocate those ideas, or they wouldn’t be fiscal conservatives. Romney and Rudy qualify, not so sure about McCain (certainly on a good day, but he doesn’t have many of those), Huckabee does not.

No leading Democrats qualify. Zero.

Bush never qualified on that score. No mystery what he meant by compassionate (big government) conservative.

30

**I guess you don’t want to answer a question. Par for the course in the LR. **

Right back at ya buddy. :wink:

31

Art,
Question, for my own edification, on the whole fiscal conservative vs. compassionate thing: How do the fiscal conservatives reconcile the potential downside to cutting funding to social programs? That likely sounds like some LR trap, but its not. Its something I’ve been struggling with myself for a bit. I hate seeing the money of the hardworking and responsible taken and given to those who made poor decisions. At the same time, seeing people suffer is not good. Is there a point where its right/moral to just cut off the welfare/programs?

For me, I’d rather just be left to my own devices, but that’s easy- I’m firmly entrenched in the middle class, and doing well, with things getting better. It really is hard to look at someone who’s in a bad spot in life and just say “tough luck, man”, even if they’re in that spot because they were totally irresponsible.

32

“At the same time, seeing people suffer is not good. Is there a point where its right/moral to just cut off the welfare/programs?”

We don’t have problems with Welfare Programs in this country anymore, at least for the most part. That was all fixed by the Republican Congress that got swept in back in 1994, before they had time to get corrupted. The third time around, Clinton signed it.

There is very little money in those programs relatively speaking. All the money is in the middle class entitlement programs, mostly Social Security and Medicare. These are mostly transfer payments from young, relatively poor workers, to old, rich retirees. It is bankrupting us.

Taylor above doesn’t want to whine about those programs, only the money spent on programs he doesn’t like. We piss away with the stroke of a pen about as much money on $1,200 checks to people who don’t need or deserve them as we do in a year in Iraq trying to change the Middle East and bring peace and a representative government to 25,000,000 people.

Much better to have the feds buy everyone a flat screen HDTV I guess.

33

We were talking about record profits and funding the war that you have been vehemently defending for several years until you tried to change the subject. Go ahead and start some meaningful threads that are focused on solutions to the other topics you mentioned and I will pitch in. I don’t disagree with you that those programs need major reform.

You want to label me, I’ll make it easy. I do not support people who are able to work, but opt not to. I do not support people who purposely engorge themselves on the gov’t teat when they don’t need it (personal or corporate). I don’t believe that a monopolistic company making record profits and giving half billion dollar bonuses to employees in the face of a slipping economy should get more of a tax break in a time of war. I believe that personal sacrifice is not off the table to help defend the country or preserve the environment (your grandchildren will thank me later). I do not believe that business can go unregulated as there is no conscience in a GL. Let business do what they may within a set of common sense rules that take into consideration the common good in some capacity.

Really Art, we cannot simply turn off social security and let our elderly folks freeze and starve in their homes. The same goes with healthcare. That is part of the reason America is great: we take care of our people. What are you going to do, turn off Medicare and let the bodies of people denied coverage pile up in hospital parking lots in the name of corporate profit? If there is fraud, kick them to the curb, if a family is working hard and needs a break, give them some healthcare. There is nothing unreasonable about that.

34

Heaven forbid we take back the free Viagra and let people wait an extra three years before they get on the gravy train. Heaven forbid we index SS to inflation rather than wages. Yeah, this is all about piling up dead bodies in the hospital parking lots.

Let’s “give” people what you say and “pay” for it by abandoning Iraq to AQ. That plan worked so well in Vietnam. They piled up 2,000,000 bodies before it was over.

Give some thought as to whose policies are lethal before you unload. Try winding the tape forward a bit first.

35

Heaven forbid we take back the free Viagra and let people wait an extra three years before they get on the gravy train. Heaven forbid we index SS to inflation rather than wages.

You can try to over simplify. SS and MC take a HUGE amount of money to maintain and are completely unsustainable. Those things you mentioned are chump change.

That plan worked so well in Vietnam. They piled up 2,000,000 bodies before it was over.

We should have never gone to Iraq in the first place. It had nothing to do with 911, they had no WMDs and AQ != Iraq. The profiteering motives of this war turn my stomach. If you are saying the war was to help the Iraqi people, then I’m sure you will be the front of the line to head into Africa next.

36

Your arithmetic is very poor. Those changes I mentioned are huge. Delay the retirement age and fix the indexing fiasco and SS is fine for many decades.

We can argue about what should have been done five years ago, but that is kind of pointless. If you think we should run from Iraq today like Obama, you should be at the front of the line to take responsibility if another 2,000,000 bodies pile up. Will you? Will he?

37

I wouldn’t like to see any of the innocent Iraqi people die. However, the Iraq situation will likely result in a civil war whether we leave within 2 years or 20 years. The people that started the war are the ones who bear responsiblity. You can’t just pass the buck on that one (although the right will certainly try if the Dems get elected).

How much are you willing to risk of our country to continue supporting the failed policy? Are you willing to stay at any cost? Where would you draw the line and how will you fund and man such a plan?

38

Your talking points are so one year ago. Take a look at what is going on over there. Huge progress being made. AQ’s poll numbers have plummeted in Pakistan to levels below that of our Congress. If Bin Laden were running for election, he would be urged to drop out. You aren’t hearing about Iraq on the front page for a reason. The media can’t find enough bad news to report.

If you think you can feed the alligator in the hopes that he will eat you last, think again. You need to defeat the alligator to secure freedom.

As an archconservative, war mongering, neocon, radical moron once said:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This we pledge – and more."

Hmm. I must have a bad copy of the speech. What happened to the part about making this commitment unless it gets in the way of early retirement and free Viagra? I will have to google for a more up to date version.

39

“At the same time, seeing people suffer is not good. Is there a point where its right/moral to just cut off the welfare/programs?”

We don’t have problems with Welfare Programs in this country anymore, at least for the most part. That was all fixed by the Republican Congress that got swept in back in 1994, before they had time to get corrupted. The third time around, Clinton signed it.

There is very little money in those programs relatively speaking. All the money is in the middle class entitlement programs, mostly Social Security and Medicare. These are mostly transfer payments from young, relatively poor workers, to old, rich retirees. It is bankrupting us.

Taylor above doesn’t want to whine about those programs, only the money spent on programs he doesn’t like. We piss away with the stroke of a pen about as much money on $1,200 checks to people who don’t need or deserve them as we do in a year in Iraq trying to change the Middle East and bring peace and a representative government to 25,000,000 people.

Much better to have the feds buy everyone a flat screen HDTV I guess.

Alright, and the “stimulus package” is another one that makes no sense to me. Like I said elsewhere, I’ll take the $1200 ($1500 w/ the kiddo?), as its my only recourse- that’s going into the Roth. As for all of the housing mess, that’s where I really start to have problems. I hate to see families lose their home, but they should have stayed within their means. If they don’t have some repercussions for not being fiscally prudent, then they’ll make the same mistakes and people like me get taxed to bail the mess out. Same w/ the banks- yeah, it might make the economy a bit rough for a few years, but they shouldn’t have made those no-income-verification loans; let them lose money, and to hell w/ the upper management.

Is it mean? Sure, but in the end I feel like my family and I are getting hosed for being responsible.