I’m not sure why you’re surprised although middle ground viewpoints do seem to puzzle the diehards on both wings.

Is that what you think you hold? How “enlightened” Mike. Pat yourself on the back some more and make sure to slip in a few more sly insults at those you deem to be “puzzled”.

So much for hope.

dont ask me how i did that.

If A has possessions worth 1 million dollars and B has no possessions, it stands to reason that they don’t benefit equally.

A has more to lose than B so it costs him more. Bottom line everyone benefits equally based upon their possessions. B doesn’t lose his dollar and A doesn’t lose his million.

They have the same formal protection but that protection is worth quite a bit more to A than to B.

The more you have the more you have to worry about, or in this case protect.

likwid: I figured it was “sockpuppet City”.

Lik…When I first read that? I thought I read that wrong! …

jpe, it is nationalisation of a privately owned industry. Call it a tax all you want. There is a name for this idea. You are pretty smart and I am fairly certain you know that name.

Hillary will in the coming months point to Bolivia,Peru,Venezuela, and China and say “Look! They are all doing it! Why can’t we?” and people will sagely nod their heads and agree.

Look at Russia, Eastern Europe, and China. Look at the pristine enviromental conditions in those countries. Don’t we all want our enviroment to be so wonderful?

Her proposition is a textbook example of communism.

If we did a “man on the street” poll, I wonder how many people would know this-or even know what communism is?

Actually, the better hypo is one where the wealthy have private police forces. Taxing them to pay for public police would be a redistribution ala health care: it would be subsidizing the police protection of those that can’t afford private police with the tax revenues of those that can’t afford private police.

jpe,

Better hypo? This is ridiculous and not even based in reality. We are talking about federal taxes here. The feds don’t police city streets or state highways. Besides, if the rich wanted added security the have the right to hire whoever they please.

You’re off your rocker jpe.
But then again, most liberals are.

Well, that wasn’t her quote! This is!

The same is true with energy independence. The Democrats know what needs to be done. Again, we’re working to try to push this agenda forward.

The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits, and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy alternatives and technologies that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence.

…it seems to me that the point of posts like these is to shift the language from considering taxation and expropriation as two distinct things to defining the taxation as a species of expropriation. And that’s a perfectly legit political-semantic project…

jpe,

A very astute observation! Ordinarily, it is those on the Left who are most often and most blatantly guilty of ideological hyperbole, and willful misstatements and insults… all to justify their intellectually or constitutionally untenable point of view. It is not for nothing that liberals are so often accused of lying.

(When the 1994 GOP revolution took over the Congress under the banner of the “Contract” and Republicans first pushed for entitlement reform, as they had promised, the Democrats, led by a reform reluctant Clinton White House howled and screamed across the nation’s airwaves about children who would starve without their school lunches and seniors who would perish without their Social Security checks and Medi-care benefits. A reduction in the RATE OF INCREASE from 8% over baseline to 5% was portrayed as a Draconian CUT which threatened to reduce the US population. Please note that no children or seniors have died as a result, and the Clintonistas now take credit for instituting “Welfare reform.)

One of the basic differences between those on the Right and those on the Left is that conservatives are far, far more principled people than their liberal brethren. Or, put another way, those on the Left are more often guided by the adage that the end justifies the means. (And yet, look who is accused of Fascism!?)

This is a distinct disadvantage to conservatives who are often forced to fend off dishonest accusations and ad hominem attacks from liberals who are incapable of arguing policy differences on the merits.

If the past few years of GOP “control” of Congress, and the Senate in particular, teach us anything, it is that those of us on the Right have not been nearly as determined, or ferocious, as we should have been in fighting our ideological battles with those on the Left. “Going along to get along” is not leadership, and in the end it only slows the drift toward the Left, rather than forcing the center back toward the Right.

Republicans win when they campaign, and govern, as Conservatives. A principle not worth fighting for, isn’t worth much in my estimation.

What services by govt are really required?

I think government dances to the beat of a different drummer! I hear the Beach Boys singing, “Wouldn’t it be nice?”Wouldn’t it be nice if the government did all sorts of things for people that they otherwise couldn’t afford? All we have to do is confiscate as much as we can from productive Americans!
Wouldn’t it be nice if government showed a little restraint in what they want to do for us with other people’s money?

Most Americans are aware that some people (Gates) and industries(Energy) at times make profits that appear almost obscene in their amounts, as do the special pay packages of corporate executives. However, remember that those profits also benefit shareholders and many of them today are average citizens either via their own stock portfolios or their retirement plans, relying on these monies for their own retirement years or just to enjoy some of the luxuries of life. That is the wonderful by product of capitalism – everyone benefits in some way from such success. By the way, if I am not mistaken everyone benefiting from those profits in one way or another pay taxes on that income?

As to Hillary and the Democrats, when they tax a specific industry versus all business at certain levels and use those tax monies for any program designed to force social changes (alternative energy sources)that is socialism – not a classic takeover of industry to be sure, but a singling out an industry for special taxation for purposes of social engineering.

We can debate this until the cows come home, but it is still anti-capitalism and pro-socialism for Madame Hillary to suggest such a program.

It will be interesting to see if she backtracks because she definitely said what you thought she said.

This isn’t a government takeover of equity; it’s just a tax increase on a particular industry. (who very likely get significant tax breaks above and beyond what other industries get)

Hyperbolic political rhetoric is fine, but you’ve made the mistake of taking it literally.

It will be interesting to see if she backtracks because she definitely said what you thought she said.

The Clintons still have a deeply held belief that Communism is the right way to go; it just hasn’t been implemented correctly like they think they can do.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the government did all sorts of things for people that they otherwise couldn’t afford?

Wouldn’t it be nice if we kept our money? Wouldn’t it be nice if we could pay our own bills? Wouldn’t it be nice if our employer could afford to pay the good workers rather than having to give my raise to the entry level workers….

set that to music.

This time around it is going to take a lot more than talk, gripping and complaining; conservatives must get active between now and 2008 and defeat Madame Hillary, Edwards, Obama and most Democrats both in Congress and the White House. If we get stuck with Hillary and a socialist future, it will be our fault – not theirs. They are doing what any predator will naturally do – try and devour as much as they are allowed to eat; we must deny them any food at all.

That means getting out the vote for conservatives, giving money as we can afford to our candidates and while the secularists among us will hate it – pray for victory for conservative values and candidates to prevail this next election.

This will only be one of her programs if she is elected and the liberal continue hold its majority in Congress. A democrat controlled congress will only do one thing. Similar to Venezuela and Chavez, Hillary will be granted unconditional power. Then watch the wheels come off….

That was really creepy! AND those other people in agreement with her couldn’t be any creepier… No!

I hereby Reject the notion, And I invite everyone to join me!… That is just not a very good risk to take on behalf of the citizens of North Dakota???

Hillary is going after our energy since her attempt to take over our health care failed!

She said “I want to take”, where exactly is the tax part of that statement?

Semantics take we all know that means, confiscate, tax steal, it all means the same thing.

She said “I want to take”, she does not have the right or authority to “take” anything from anyone. She does not mean tax increase. She has in the past made clear that ALL privately owned corporations should be placed under the direct control of “government” because they are “corrupt”. Let that sink in, gang. Hillary Rodham Clinton say that “corporations” are “corrupt”. Guess we can “take” her word for that, she certainly knows what “corruption” is.

Her entire health care reform plan was socialism, she has been blocked repeatedly in implementing this. Now she is shifting tactics. She will point to other countries that are “taking” companies profits and tell America that is what we need to do.

This is nationalizing. And you are correct. This is not strictly defined as socialism. “Any similar nationalist/authoritarian movement”, jpe, care to hazard a guess what word’s definition that comes from?

And yes, Chavez is nationalizing the oil,gas,print,and broadcastmedia industries in his country. And yes, it is HIS country. The Congress of Venezuela has given it to him for the next 18 months. And if you think he is ever going to give up that power you are seriously mistaken.

Or, assume that some benevolent redistributionist force wants to invade, take half A’s cash and give it to B (bear in mind this is hypothetical); in that case, national defense would seem to be adverse to B’s material interests.

Only if B wishes to profit from the destruction of B’s own government. This is utterly goofy.

MikeZulu, thanks for that! Laughter is and all that. Nman,MZ,I never said give up. That is not what the quote means. Safety is an illusion, and to seek it to the exclusion of all else leads to defeat. Gird yourself for war, as if it will come upon the ‘morrow.

These are not popular sentiments in our culture. We are all supposed to “get along”, even when that means our nation and culture will be destroyed. I don’t accept that. And THAT is what will put me at conflict with the nattering naybobs of submission. And that I will not.

DBS

The oil companies haven’t been paying what they owe the American people for their profits on the resource they are leasing from our government. And so?

Straight from the Communist Manifesto.

If A has possessions worth 1 million dollars and B has no possessions, it stands to reason that they don’t benefit equally.

A has more to lose than B so it costs him more. Bottom line everyone benefits equally based upon their possessions. B doesn’t lose his dollar and A doesn’t lose his million.

They have the same formal protection but that protection is worth quite a bit more to A than to B.

The more you have the more you have to worry about, or in this case protect.

I’m certainly a believer in business paying its fair share in taxes…

MikeA,

That quaint, “fair share” stuff is practically cliche with youse guys on the Left, but euphemisms aside, what exactly does that mean? What exactly is a coporations’s “fair share?” Cyclical or not. After all, corporations don’t really pay taxes at all. Their customers and their shareholders do.

So why not, just for once, be honest and acknowledge the economic growth that these taxation proposals would curtail, the jobs that would not be created, the growth in federal revenues collected that would NOT be sustained, the correspondingly worsening condition of Social Security, Medi-Care, and the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation due to increased unfunded liabilities?

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberry.

lik…it’s nice to see you with high hopes. I’m not sure why you’re surprised although middle ground viewpoints do seem to puzzle the diehards on both wings.

BF said

Whoosh– I’m glad we have MikeA to explain and clarify these types of complex statements for us–that she said what we “thought” she said.

And the best part is that it didn’t cost you a dime.

jpe…I’m afraid you’ve fallen into the trap of expecting rational responses to your reasonable comment. Not that it wasn’t a wacky thing for Clinton to say IMO but a proposal to increase taxes on energy company profits does equal socialism in these parts.

I would like to see Hillary get taxed some more. Wasn’t she trying to declare all kinds of weird things on her taxes???? Like her used underwear?

Zsa Zsa,

Perhaps a better place to start would be with the White House furniture, dishes, and silverware that she and her lame-assed husband made off with when he left office. After all, if it was part of their compensation and rightfully theirs, then it should have been declared as income and taxes accordingly (ref: U.S. v. Alphonse Capone).

On the other hand, if it wasn’t then taking that stuff amounts to thievery.

What the hell gives Hilary the right to confiscate more of one industry’s profits simply because they are successful?

Like one person, “I wonder if Hillary’s handliers will have her retracting these views next week. What she discribe is blatant socialism or communism.

I don’t believe Legally she can do it. I a repesentative republic the government can’t just go around stealing peoples money because they feel the government is entitled to it. Sure the government can tax it and the dems have said they will but they just can’t come in and take their money away from BP, etc. Hopefully this is the beginning to the end of the Hillary campaign. Its up to us to hammer her every chance we get.

Basically the Dems have done every thing we said they will and more. the Defeatocrats are already playing the class warfare card with their base. This is blatant socialism, taxation, confiscation of income and good from the rich, taxes for free hand outs. Hugo Hillary, or maybe Hillary Chavez. I bet Cindy Sheehan and Hanoi Jane are chearing somewhere since god knows we all know they love socialist dictators.

This isn’t a government takeover of equity; it’s just a tax increase on a particular industry. (who very likely get significant tax breaks above and beyond what other industries get)

jpe,

Those profits you seem so willing to see taxed are the rightful property of the company and its owners (the stockholders). And whether those profits are passed on as dividends to the stockholders, kept on the company’s books as retained earnings, used to pay down debt outstanding, invested in the discovery and development of more energy, or some combination of all of the above, those profits represent an increased return on investment and a corresponding increase in the value of the company and the company’s stock… in other words, equity.

This is the same, tired, “how dare these guys be so powerful and profitable” class warfare schtick that liberal Democrats have been running since the days of FDR. That the Democrats then have the balls, or the latent stupidity, to turn around and whine about energy costs, or jobs, simply proves what hypocrites they truly are.

Oh yeah, the issue of a state owned refinery came up many times on the Taxpayer Trust Tour here is the report from the tour (look under “Recommendation: Invest in Energy Transmission”)

The roundtable participants recognize the importance of North Dakota’s energy industry. Many discussions focused on incentives for energy programs including everything from building a state-owned oil refinery to funding alternative energy research and development projects.

The organization, Former Governor Ed Schafer, and Duane Sand have not formally edorsed a plan – but no one has rejected the notion.

Sorry, Guy’s! I lost it there for a moment…

This isn’t a government takeover of equity…

No, it’s the confiscation of funds that might be put back into energy production to fund a government alternative energy industry to build their equity.

That’s all we need! An energy agency with all the efficiency of the post office and as responsive to public needs as the DMV!

2Hotel9-er transmitted from his PRC-77:

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Oh yeah?

Well how about one of my favorites?

Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc

I also am of the firm conviction that a latin maxim, followed by the word “mutherfucker” kinda gives it an edgy ring, thus:

non revertar inultus, mutherfucker

(thanks Bruce Willis)

And with regard to the First Bitch, it is just further, ongoing and confirming evidence that she is a not-so-hidden commie in dire need of sitting in the beaten zone.

Let me see…she wants to nationalize the health industry, she wants to nationalize the energy industry… Is there anything she doesn’t want to nationalize?

“Industries” don’t pay any taxes; their customers do!

Actually, the better hypo is one where the wealthy have private police forces. Taxing them to pay for public police would be a redistribution ala health care: it would be subsidizing the police protection of those that can’t afford private police with the tax revenues of those that can’t afford private police.

What Hillary wants to do is called “confiscatory taxation.” It need not be part of a socialist agenda in so far as it maintains ownership in the hands of the private sector. Now, the profit motive disappears, but conceivably a business would stay in operation for other reasons.

Like the threat of fascistic terror.

Anyway, here is her quote:

Predictability and stability in energy costs are what are important to West Virginia manufacturers.

Funny how, with the exception of Fox, the mainstream media ignored her comments.

lik said

I guess that’s not socialism in your world.

Mrs. Clinton didn’t actually specify how she wants to take the energy companies’ profits so I shouldn’t dismiss your opinion so glibly. A reasonable interpretation of her comments is that the energy companies have made record profits and those profits should be diverted into a strategic energy fund to find alternative sources. She’s not saying that the government should be in the energy business but that the record profits should be used to wean America off oil. I infer that’s she’s talking about taxing the profits rather than expropriating the businesses but in fairness to your argument she did not explicitly say that.

I doubt that anyone running for a major American party’s nomination would get very far supporting socialist principles but that’s just my opinion.

she definitely said what you thought she said.
MikeAdamson on February 3, 2007 at 08:44 pm

Whoosh– I’m glad we have MikeA to explain and clarify these types of complex statements for us–that she said what we “thought” she said.

Man O Man, if it wasn’t for Mike’s profound insight, we might have “thought” she said something different than what she actually said– like, uh “it takes a village to raise a child” or something silly like that.

Rob…I think energy companies pay enough too.

Bat One…I don’t have any particular figures in mind. Taxes stifle growth, whether they be personal or corporate, so the lower the better while still maintaining the government’s ability to deliver required services.

The oil companies haven’t been paying what they owe the American people for their profits on the resource they are leasing from our government. And so?

The oil companies pay about three times the amount they make in profits when they pay their taxes, so they pay more than enough. BTW, being privately owned, the oil companies are part of the American people. Taxes don’t go to the American people, they go to the govt.

…the government’s ability to deliver required services.

Aye, there’s the rub! What services by govt are really required? I can only think of a few; the rest are forced upon us after our money has been confiscated.

Thanks TW. I’m certainly a believer in business paying its fair share in taxes but i don’t believe in penalising cyclical industries like energy by increasing taxes when times are good…unless they get a break when times aren’t good of course but then that seems to be complicating matters unnecessarily.

I love that cartoonist!…

What an ——– idiot!!!!! Oh MY Gosh! She makes me sick! Keep talking you stupid female dog!

MikeAdamson said, Taxes stifle growth, whether they be personal or corporate, so the lower the better while still maintaining the government’s ability to deliver required services.

OMG! Mike, I have much higher hopes for you after reading that comment. I’m glad to hear that you see this.

Neiman, don’t conservatives between legitimate forms of redistribution (police) and illegitimate (health care)? As I understand conservativism, it’s not the redistribution itself but its purpose.

Vote Clinton in? No way.

Course, you’ve no excuse for voting this idiot in:

I mean, you could have voted in a Republican with some common sense.