That’s pretty much what I get from this:
She wants to seize the oil industry’s profits and use them for the government’s own projects.
Sure, but why stop there? Why not just take over the oil industry, sell Americans the oil for a profit, and then put those profits right in the government’s coffers?
That’s socialism, of course, but so what?
What an -------- idiot!!!!! Oh MY Gosh! She makes me sick! Keep talking you stupid female dog!
Sorry, Guy’s! I lost it there for a moment…
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....
You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.
We already went through Jimmy Carter and his windfall profits tax. That did not work! I reeeeeeeally dislike her…
There’s a lot of people here in ND that want the state to build a pipeline and even an refinery. A lot of good conservatives are buying into that idea as well and pushing it behind the scenes.
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?
Excuse me, you were saying?
Free… I had not heard about the state wanting to do that...that would be a Bad mistake. Let the producers do their thing. IF infrastructure is needed to refine And OR transport the oil??? Make sure North Dakota has the regulatory and tax regime in place to encourage the industry to Build it There rather than another state. What will the state do if the refinery is not used to capacity? Why let the taxpayers take this risk rather than the industry???…
It will be interesting to see if she backtracks because she definitely said what you thought she said.
"New Year’s Resolution: To tolerate fools more gladly, provided this does not encourage them to take up more of my time.” - James Agate
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.
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.
"Industries” don’t pay any taxes; their customers do!
I would like to see Hillary get taxed some more. Wasn’t she trying to declare all kinds of wierd things on her taxes???? Like her used underwear? Eeeeeeeoooooowah! I don’t like Hillary!
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.
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.
“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”
This is no joke!
Who is behind these extreme environmental, economic and social measures? The Left, the Democrat Party, socialists everywhere. These are the tools of the Left to help them gain control of every aspect of our lives and we better wake up to it damn soon and stop this power grab or we will find ourselves living in a wholly socialist-green state; and once they have the power they won’t give a damn about the environment and there won’t be any liberal social policies under their iron grip.
DocDave hit the nail on the head, we should change her name to Hillary Chavez! Now laugh, but there is a strong probability she will get elected and if she does she and her socialist, I mean Democrat Party partners in Congress will see it as a mandate for changing the course of this country to align itself with Europe’s socialist policies.
We conservatives better get off our butts and keep her and Obama or Edwards out of the White House. Hillary won’t even pretend to be a moderate like Billy Jeff.
No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.
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???
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.
“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”
This isn’t a government takeover of equity; it’s just a tax increase on a particular industry.
What the hell gives Hilary the right to confiscate more of one industry’s profits simply because they are successful?
jpe,
Rather than envy other’s, try emulating their excellence. You are capable, no matter what liberals tell you.
It isn’t just a tax increase, it is clearly confiscation of legal profits and a government redistribution of legal income as a socialist program.
HG: Class warfare is another weapon in the Democrat Party arsenal to divide and conquer the nation.
No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.
It worked so good for her hero Hugo Chavez and I’m sure she’ll be every bit as good steward of the industry as Iran which has run their oil industry into the sand.
TANSTAAFL
Zsa Zsa,
The idea from the conservative side of things is that the revenue produced from the refinery would be enough to offset the elimination of the state income tax.
Currently the price of oil is artifically stiffled due to a lack of transportation capacity via pipelines, and a lack of refining capacity.
A refinery built in Richardton would be within 150 miles of a lot of oil, it would also be right next to the ethanol plant, which would save on tranportion cost of the ethanol for blending.
In a state that does not shy away from socialism (State Owned Bank, State Own Mill and Elevator) it certainly would not be outside the realm.
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!
Excuse me, you were saying?
Hillary is going after our energy since her attempt to take over our health care failed!
This will only be one of her programs if she is elected…
The medical industry, energy companies...and your little dog, too!
Excuse me, you were saying?
Unfortunately, we’d like our elected officials to channel Alexander Hamilton, not Margaret!
Excuse me, you were saying?
Her socialist roots come out when she says “I want to take...”
It is not hers to take, it never was, and never will be. A socialist never lets someone elses property get in the way of that, however. They just use the power of government to take it.
Of course, the oil industry will go to court, and the Supreme Court should uphold their rights. If not, kiss Capitalism and the Constitution goodbye.
I need to relax.
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?
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
I want to take those profits…
They’re not hers to take. End of story.
Hillary is a rich woman who wants to take away the profits of others. I guess she doesn’t realize that many retirement funds are invested in the energy market. Oh but wait,..she wants to control that as well.
The lady is a control freak.
I will note that jpe’s pathetic reasoning is the icing on the cake in this thread. As if the government taking the profits and using them to their own ends isn’t a government takeover of equity. I guess lying goes hand in hand with thievery.
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.
Nowadays falsehood stands erect and truth lies prostrate on the ground.
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?
Nowadays falsehood stands erect and truth lies prostrate on the ground.
jpe, it is nationalisation of a privately owned industry.
Generally, when we use the word “nationalize,” though, we’re talking about a whole-sale seizure of the entity and its assets. If an article said that Chavez nationalized the oil industry and then we learned that he just increased their effective tax rate from somewhere in the ballpark of 15% to something closer to 25%, it would be a mischaracterization. (it’s been a while since I’ve studied intl law on the subject, but intl investment law tells us that the tax rate has to constitute a “substantial impairment” on the right to the property. I couldn’t find any hard figures, and as fun as it would be to search ICSID cases for a ballpark, I gotta start studyin’
The reason I haven’t jumped in earlier: 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, and it wasn’t my place to but in the first case. Or the second case.
(the smiley above was unintentional)
She said “I want to take”, where exactly is the tax part of that statement?
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
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.
Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World
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.
Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World
That was really creepy! AND those other people in agreement with her couldn’t be any creepier… No!
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.
"New Year’s Resolution: To tolerate fools more gladly, provided this does not encourage them to take up more of my time.” - James Agate
...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.
“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”
MikeAdamson said, 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.
The way Hillary said it, the “tax” equals 100%.
I guess that’s not socialism in your world.
The Dems have never seen a tax increase they haven’t liked.
Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World
I guess that’s not socialism in your world.
Lik,
In that world, socialism is “reasonable” and even desirable. The intentions, the “common good,” justify the confiscatory means.
“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”
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.
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
She wants to “take” and “push” her agenda....That makes me cringe!
Hillary is a Marxist, pure and simple. The shocking thing is that her Marxism, and that of John Edwards, is so prominently on display. They must be depending on the political and economic ignorance of the average American to make the statements they make. No American politician could have gotten away with saying that kind of thing in the Fifties, but we have become desensitized, I guess. Incrementalism at work.
Her statement also illustrates that there is little difference between communism and fascism.
The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.
People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules. But it most certainly does. All our problems are due to government meddling.
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.
No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.
The only problem, Nman, is we keep putting conservatives in office, then they do the exact same things the Democrat Party does. And plenty of them are hopping aboard the socialism train. They want to be in the ruling class. 4 years ago I was pushing to have people vote out those Republicans/conservatives that had stabbed us all in the back. I was told to shutup! Have to vote for the Party! Just give them a chance! They are fighting for us!
Now here we stand, on the raggedy. Kruschev’s dream made whole.
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
2Hotel9: I don’t disagree with you! They are all, pardon the expression - whores! Plus they are power mad whores, they not only want us to pay for them screwing us they expect us to thank them for the honor.
I guess I would rather have conservatives that will at least engage in long, slow foreplay while they are screwing us than ‘slam bam thank you maam’ Democrats like Madame Hillary.
No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.
Yes, whores. Let me put that in caps. WHORES. My only problem with that description is it denigrates all those hardworking, honest prostitutes out there.
All members of Congress and State legislatures are accelerating towards socialism. Their thinking being that if they do it first they will be at the top of the food chain. Again, not students of history. If they were they would know that those who establish a socialist government are the first to be sent to “re-education centers”, at the orders of whoever names themself Grande Commissar.
I do trully hate following this line of thought. It always leaves me with the same, bleak vision. My son, starving and ragged, rifle in hand standing alone and surrounded by enemies.
And on that cheerful note I will leave you with my signiture line, motto, epitaph.
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
I don’t want to be preachy, but I recall the how the Eagle soars, in the highest winds when the storm is the worst the eagle is said not to fly away from its nest to look for food, they just spread their wings and rise up on the turbulent currents and effortlessly ride the winds looking for prey. Yes, I agree that things look pretty bad right now, but we can use the turbulent political winds created by the Democrats and even liberal and moderate Republicans by their overreaching and use those currents to turn them into our prey and defeat them.
They will, I absolutely assure you try and bite off more than they can chew and when they do we have to be ready to go in for the kill and defeat them. When the conservatives return to power and overplay their hand, again we go after them. Maybe it will only slow down the inevitable slide towards socialism, but the fight is not always to the swift, etcetera but the determined.
No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.
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.
"New Year’s Resolution: To tolerate fools more gladly, provided this does not encourage them to take up more of my time.” - James Agate
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.
...for great justice
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.
These oil companies are privately owned companies so the Government isn’t entitled to those records wind fall profits.
I also heard some of these clowns on the left talking about limiting CEO pay. I don’t how the hell they think they have any say about this. We live in a capalist society we are not going to be going down the same road of Hugo’s country. I don’t care how much the holly wood left loves this boozo. We live in representative democracy and this very notion of limiting captialize is mind boggeling.
Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World
MikeAdamson: When the government gets into the business of taxing profits and diverting that money for any purposes, no matter how noble, it still smacks of socialism doesn’t it? As far as any party getting very far promoting socialist principles many of us would contend that both political parties, to varying degrees, with the Democrats being more agressive, have been doing that very thing inch after inch for many decades.
No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.
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.
Folks, she IS a commie. Check out the indicia…
Hillary’s Leftist Roots, see further reference to the:
“Powell explains, IPS has emphasized its “two overriding goals: dismantling the capitalist economic order and reshaping public sector institutions in ways that give the Left political power thus far denied by the electoral process.”
Hillary’s Hand in Waco, World Government, Witchcraft
...for great justice
Neiman...if you mean socialism as governmental intervention in the economy then sure it smacks of socialism. If you mean socialism as ownership of the means of production then it doesn’t so smack. I live in a world where governments intervene to ameliorate the undesirable effects of capitalism and the debate is over how much intervention is necessary and/or desirable.
I usually refer to the expanded role of the state in our economy and in our lives generally as statism rather than socialism. I’m told it is part of my charm.
"New Year’s Resolution: To tolerate fools more gladly, provided this does not encourage them to take up more of my time.” - James Agate
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.
How is this not the State controlling private business? Besides, the whole “record profits” meme is deceptive; they also paid record taxes and had record sales. In case you don’t know it, Mike, the key to profits is to sell a lot of product. If the oil companies increased their profit margin, you might have a case, but that didn’t happen. If Exxon increased their profit margin, they would become uncompetitive with the other oil companies, so it’s not something that can be done by fiat, the way the govt does things. Market forces, you know.
The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.
People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules. But it most certainly does. All our problems are due to government meddling.
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
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
govt ownership of the means of production=socialism
govt control of the means of production=fascism
Economically, they are both command systems, where private enterprise is a demand system.
The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.
People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules. But it most certainly does. All our problems are due to government meddling.
As I understand conservativism, it’s not the redistribution itself but its purpose.
jpe,
It appears you do not understand conservatism. There is no redistribution in conservative government. Taxes for the purpose of Hnational defense and security benefit all equally, and none of those tax revenues are given to others who are classified according to that which they envy in common.
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.
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.
Sounds like Hillary wants to mimic Chavez and lead us to socialist nirvana.
Taxes for the purpose of Hnational defense and security benefit all equally
This is veering on the peripheral, so I’ll ask this and bow out, but I don’t see how that could be the case. If A has possessions worth 1 million dollars and B has no possessions, it stands to reason that they don’t benefit equally. They have the same formal protection but that protection is worth quite a bit more to A than to B.
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.
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.
From the figures I have seen in the paper, Exxon’s profit margin on gross revenues is about 10.5%. That is about average for large American corporations. Hell, if my small business (8 employees total including me) made only 10-1/2% profit I would consider it a poor year.
They have the same formal protection but that protection is worth quite a bit more to A than to B.
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.
Your underlying assumption here is that the only thing valuable is assets, and that national defense is only to be measured by asset protection. In this country, there’s that thing called individual independence, which is what enables us to choose whether we do what is required to accumulate assets or not.
The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.
People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules. But it most certainly does. All our problems are due to government meddling.
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.
No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kevin, thanks for saying what I have for almost two years now. These social-democrats/liberals are communists in disguise. They just want to TAKE AWAY from what others have earned.
Communism is evil
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 haven’t been paying what they owe the American people for their profits on the resource they are leasing from our government.
Yes they have. Quit making shit up.
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 only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.
People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules. But it most certainly does. All our problems are due to government meddling.
robert108 - if you’re wondering who the “juhjuhjacko” character is, he is the same one who wrote this a few months ago under the name of “supergreen”. He’s also going by the names “zoomzoom” and “conservative justice”.
From his remarks I figured he wasn’t one of our regulars. They sure go to a lot of trouble to just to make some inane comments underdifferent aliases.
You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.
Let’s not forget that the last time the government intervened in the energy market it was a dismal failure.
Higher real prices than now, long lines and berjillions wasted in bad energy projects. Thanks Jimmy.
TANSTAAFL
likwid: I figured it was “sockpuppet City”.
The only legitimate role of government with regard to economics is to prevent fraud and provide a remedy- civil and criminal penalties- in case of fraud.
People have the mistaken notion that the free market has no rules. But it most certainly does. All our problems are due to government meddling.
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.
Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World
