"I want to take those profits".............
 

Geez, why limit it to just big oil, why not profits from all our companies,

large and small ,and let her spend them as she wishes. :huh: :rolleyes:

That's pretty much the way I see it too.....How about stripping profits from Doctors to lower healthcare costs or seizing profits from landlords to provide more affordable housing?

Nothing like a little neo-wannabe taking quotes slightly out context to scare the dumb people who don't understand. And I thought it was the far left who were the intellectual elitists!

-spence

Whats next? Universal Healthcare????? http://dune.servint.com/uploads/c_laugh.gif

Nothing out of context whatsoever. It is what it is but Neo-comms prefer to ignore what it is.

You've just been whipped up into a frenzy by the Hillaryphobes who have such a visceral reaction to her image their daily functions are impaired. They should not be operating heavy machinery under any circumstances.

Do you really believe Hillary wants to take away all oil profits?

Don't you think most Americans would like the Government to do more to incentivise business to be more green and energy independent?

You do realize that the US Taxpayer has been subsidizing the entire oil industry via the US Military for the past 90 years don't you?

Isn't it time they got a divend?

-spence

:rotflmao:

[QUOTE=spence;518559]You've just been whipped up into a frenzy by the Hillaryphobes who have such a visceral reaction to her image their daily functions are impaired.



lol.... you better get a better name than that. We have one for you whipped-up socialists. (BDS) Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Who's "we"?

-spence

Sniper, did you even read my post? Is that difficult to understand? When your little "I'm Sean Hannity" episode is over you do understand you don't really have a tv and radio show...right?

-spence

Yeah I read it. Same crap, different day.
But........"I'm Sean Hannity"?
Excuse my hysterical laughter :jump: but you've taken BDS to an all new level now.

Now tell us how much profit should be seized.

Only in you lack of thought and attention to you posts :jester:

Your question is moot. The government already siezes a percentage of profit.

-spence

Actually the Gubmint seizes a % of net income before taxes Hillary wants to take it to a whole new level by seizing net income after taxes (profit). Good idea right? Keep on defending her. It's expected.

I have a mouse in my pocket.

Let Hugo Chavez take over America, thats the same thing he is doing in Venezuela. When she is elected she can become Presidente for life.

I'm still wondering how posting a video of Hillarys speech is out of context. I can understand why they wouldn't want it shown but claiming it's out of context is just lame.

You're accusing her of siezing or stripping profits from the companies without compensation, which is not what she's saying.

Hillary's plan is to ensure the Industry is investing in areas to ensure economic and national security where we're falling behind today. The public certainly doesn't think industry is moving fast enough in these areas.

So the companies can still turn a large profit, no issues there.

-spence

These practices do not occur in a democracy Spence, under any circumstnaces.

That's just nonsense.

The government regulates many facets of industry to ensure alignment for the common good.

-spence

--" i want to take those profits and i want to put them into a strategic energy fund"--

Didn't hear mention of using corporate tax credits,

just take those profits. :huh:

Common good. As determined by "It takes a Village" Clinton. :yak4: Suckas.

We all know the Government does a lot of stuff that's not in the Constitution...and some of it does make us better off :hee:

-spence

Hillary is a shrewd politician, no different from the rest of them.
She knows by inciting people that are paying $3/gal gas that a statement like the above ,
will make Joe public think, hey the big oil companies are screwing us and she's gonna get their profits.

Never says how, doesn't need to, the seed is planted,
-vote for Hillary she's against big oil. Mission complete.

We need a candidate who says what they mean, and mean what they say, then shows the plan.
Then Joe public can make an intelligent decision.

Unfortunately there's none around.

The Adele Stephensons and true Statesman of our country are gone, never to be seen again. :(

Sure she has said how...

1) Don't raise oil industry taxes
2) End government oil industry subsidies
3) Establish a profit threshold (based on historic trends) that companies can either use the cut off excess to contribute to an alternative energy fund (probably directing money back at them in the form of government incentives) or keep the money to invest it themselves into alternative energy technology, which many are already doing today.

In the end the companies still make record profits and the people and industry are in alignment on the direction we need to take.

Would it impact shareholder value? Perhaps, but mostly in the short-term as it would accelerate an innovative green and more self sufficient economy. It could also encourage investment in the energy sector by cleaning up public perception which isn't all that great right now.

Left to themselves the oil industry would gladly bleed the earth dry to deliver record earnings and let the next generation die in the energy wars with China.

Is that the fate you're wishing upon your three grandchildren?

-spence

Interesting stuff Spence.

1)Don't raise oil industry taxes.
Now that they will be taking it off the top, why not do away with all their taxes?
That could cause a problem though if their profits fell.

2)End government oil industry subsidies.
Does that include defense subsidies?

3)Establish a profit threshold.
That's a great idea, and while we are at it do the same to all industries ,high tech, gees Microsoft profits averages out something like the mid 20% range, pharmaceuticals, , corporate lawyers, and why not individuals like sports figures, Hollywood stars and so on and so on.
That way the government would have even more money to continue to spend wisely, like they did with FEMA.

We could become just like Norway, where there is no incentive to develop or invent anything. Just lay back drink and ski.

You could make a good argument that Microsoft's profit margin is the result of monopolistic business practices and many would agree.

As for Pharma, if they weren't subsidized by the US Taxpayer via a MASSIVE indusrty lobby who's done everything to eliminate competition through price fixing perhaps we'd pay the same for drugs as other nations. You don't "need" a 24% margin to spur innovation...unless it's innovation in MARKETING.

Which is exactly the rub.

People love to stroke the "free market" woodie 'cauze it makes them feel like they're writing an op-ed for the National Review, when in reality our markets are nothing like "free".

A true free market would probably return all the wealth to a select few very rapidly and leave the rest of us living in polluted bliss pretty quickly. Some think we're headed there regardless.

That's exactly why this "democratic" society has a progressive tax system (a.k.a wealth re-distribution) and Government regulators to control our "free market" system of commerce.

Granted with all of that it's still the best game in town and our legal system, the best in the world, keeps it all together.

But please, don't cry foul when someone wants to engineer our society, because people have been doing it for the last 200 years.

-spence

Depends on what you mean by engineering our society and who is engineering it. As long as it continues with free enterprise and our current constittuion i'm all for it.

That's why we vote to decide what we need, or don't need, and who's going to do the engineering.

My vote, as yours, will depend on what i think needs fixing and who is qualified to fix it.

Politicians depend on our poor memories of their pasts and the same old same old slogans like, "it takes a village" or "no child left behind",
who knows what they will name the next ones, as a guise to make us think they are inovative and have a plan that works.


Just mho, but right now i don't see anybody on the horizon that i think has what it takes to turn our country around. We may have already gone too far to fix. Infrastucture, drugs or whatever.

It took Rome 1000 years to fall, but after 200 years we seem to be on the fast track. However, hope springs eternal.

But whata i know, i'm just a lil' old country boy. :)