McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2008 11:26 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
What exactly is a "windfall profit"?


According to some Democrats, it is any national or worldwide condition that generates profit for big corporations. And, according to them, it should be confiscated by the government immediately.


Well, we are in a war; what's the difference between the limiting of profits during wartime in the past, and the limiting of profits now?

The oil companies are taking advantage of the world-wide situation in order to make truly record profits on the backs of the American consumer. And to a certain extent, every company does this. But the idea that this cannot be limited, ever, is ridiculous. We could cap oil company profits at the levels they are at RIGHT NOW and they would still be pulling in billions of dollars of profit PER QUARTER. The businesses would survive just fine, and we need the money worse then they need ever-expanding profits.

Cycloptichorn


So let me get this straight...

If a company selling widgets makes 5% profit on every dollar but only sell $1000.00 worth of widgets, they are not making a windfall profit right? But, when widgets become popular and everyone wants them and the company sells 100,000,000.00 worth of widgets, still at 5% profit margins, that IS a windfall profit?

Are we telling American industries that they are to punished for being successful? That sounds awful anti-American to me.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2008 11:26 am
"Eliminating windfall profits, which doesn't exist by the way in terms of percentage, will accomplish nothing, except to limit the reinvestment of dollars by private enterprise into more oil and gas and alternative energy development, which will only serve to drive the price of gasoline higher than it would otherwise."

I do not disagree that Obamas plan is a loser.

Yet, these so called "reinvestment and R$D" angle is apparently a bunch of bull. For 30 years the Oil Companies tell the Govt and the people all about R&D. What exactly have we gotten for their R&D expense. I know they got tax avoidance, but what exactly was the yield on the R&D Investment. To date is is ZERO.

Govt oversight by both parties is a joke. Obama AND McCain can be criticized in this area.

But Obama just talking about an additional tax just illustrates his inexperience.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2008 11:31 am
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
What exactly is a "windfall profit"?


According to some Democrats, it is any national or worldwide condition that generates profit for big corporations. And, according to them, it should be confiscated by the government immediately.


Well, we are in a war; what's the difference between the limiting of profits during wartime in the past, and the limiting of profits now?

The oil companies are taking advantage of the world-wide situation in order to make truly record profits on the backs of the American consumer. And to a certain extent, every company does this. But the idea that this cannot be limited, ever, is ridiculous. We could cap oil company profits at the levels they are at RIGHT NOW and they would still be pulling in billions of dollars of profit PER QUARTER. The businesses would survive just fine, and we need the money worse then they need ever-expanding profits.

Cycloptichorn


So let me get this straight...

If a company selling widgets makes 5% profit on every dollar but only sell $1000.00 worth of widgets, they are not making a windfall profit right? But, when widgets become popular and everyone wants them and the company sells 100,000,000.00 worth of widgets, still at 5% profit margins, that IS a windfall profit?

Are we telling American industries that they are to punished for being successful? That sounds awful anti-American to me.


There comes a point where you have to balance the profit motive, with what is generally good for the economy and for America as a whole. When it becomes prohibitively expensive to buy gasoline, you attempt to limit the damage done by this. I do not support an unregulated free market, and why would we? The profitability of the oil companies is pretty low on my list of concerns, and should be low on anyone's list. I'm not fighting to protect their right to make tens of billions of dollars of profit PER QUARTER every year; in fact, I do believe they should be limited. I doubt their businesses will collapse.

An interesting point; Republicans bitch constantly about Dems wanting to raise taxes, as they say folks can't afford it. But when those same folks have to pay ever-increasing amounts for gasoline, that's 'natural' and plans to limit the price of gasoline are 'unAmerican.' Even though those same people will be out as much money as if there had been a tax increase passed, sometimes more. It doesn't make sense.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2008 11:35 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
An interesting point; Republicans bitch constantly about Dems wanting to raise taxes, as they say folks can't afford it. But when those same folks have to pay ever-increasing amounts for gasoline, that's 'natural' and plans to limit the price of gasoline are 'unAmerican.' Even though those same people will be out as much money as if there had been a tax increase passed, sometimes more. It doesn't make sense.

Cycloptichorn


Paying for gas is voluntary, paying taxes is not. Maybe you don't see that difference, but others do.

The folks not able to afford gas will NOT be the ones getting taxed either.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2008 11:44 am
woiyo wrote:
"Eliminating windfall profits, which doesn't exist by the way in terms of percentage, will accomplish nothing, except to limit the reinvestment of dollars by private enterprise into more oil and gas and alternative energy development, which will only serve to drive the price of gasoline higher than it would otherwise."

I do not disagree that Obamas plan is a loser.

Yet, these so called "reinvestment and R$D" angle is apparently a bunch of bull. For 30 years the Oil Companies tell the Govt and the people all about R&D. What exactly have we gotten for their R&D expense. I know they got tax avoidance, but what exactly was the yield on the R&D Investment. To date is is ZERO.

I think you are wrong. There has been plenty of advancement in the areas of drilling and extraction technology of oil. Drilling techniques have improved, and so have extraction and recovery technologies. Another area is tar sand extraction, which did not used to exist but does now, such as in Canada. One huge area of improved technologies is offshore platforms, angled drilling, and horizontal drilling. Improved technology is one big reason why we are now hearing more about the potential of the Bakken Formation in North Dakota and Canada.

In regard to oil shale, the oil companies have doen alot of research and pilot projects, which have yielded no profit to them, but at some point when the oil shale becomes viable economically, this research and development expenditure will become important.

Oil companies have also spent money on coal research, geothermal, nuclear, and other areas, all of which contribute to the advancement of alternatives to conventional energy production, when and if these technologies become more competitive in price.

Quote:
Govt oversight by both parties is a joke. Obama AND McCain can be criticized in this area.

But Obama just talking about an additional tax just illustrates his inexperience.

Agreed. Primary point to remember, have faith in the free market, because it works, and do not bite the hand that feeds us.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2008 11:45 am
I wish paying for gas was voluntary. I have to get to work, and back, ya know. I've been asking for an official telecommuting policy, but being in the automotive industry, they want your butt on the road every day and in a seat in the office.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2008 11:48 am
cjhsa wrote:
I wish paying for gas was voluntary. I have to get to work, and back, ya know. I've been asking for an official telecommuting policy, but being in the automotive industry, they want your butt on the road every day and in a seat in the office.

You have a choice in how you get to work, and if you drive, what kind of car. You also have a choice in how far from work you live. You have a choice in where you go when you don't go to work. You have alot more choice than what tax you pay. Plus you get something from buying gasoline, far more than you get with the tax money you pay.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2008 11:50 am
Hahah, you get no lasting good from purchasing consumables. Taxes at least have the potential to purchase lasting goods.

You are simply on the wrong side of the economic picture for our current times, Okie. If McCain were to run on your platform - trust the 'free market' to save us, whatever that means - then he would get clobbered. Actually, this looks like what we currently see happening...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2008 12:04 pm
okie's opinion has a grain of truth in it; it's not the fault of the oil companies alone; consumers continued to buy gas-guzzlers when they thought gas was "cheap" and abundant. It's the fault of the car-makers, the consumers, and our government for not controlling efficiency and looking to the future on what happens when demand increases in the world of limited supply.

When we had gas shortage in the late seventies, and we had to line up at gas stations to fill our tanks, many coverted to smaller and more gas efficent cars. That didn't last very long; we were back to SUVs and large trucks in short order.

The blame lies on "us" and "them," but mostly us. We never seem to learn from history.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2008 12:12 pm
This is a fun article:

Something Just Clicked
An Obama Delegate's Road to Politics Began With an Online Donation


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060902826_pf.html
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2008 12:22 pm
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

June 10, 2008
Categories: Hillary Clinton

Clinton urging delegates to back Obama, not releasing them [Corrected]

Hillary Clinton told her convention delegates on a conference call last night that they support Barack Obama.

"She did a call with delegates to thank them for all of their hard work during the campaign, to celebrate all we accomplished, and to urge them -- as she did on Saturday -- to do everything they can to elect Barack Obama," Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee confirmed.

UPDATE: I'd initially failed to grasp a technicality here: Clinton has not formally released her delegates.

Harold Ickes started the call, a Clinton aide said, saying they weren't being released, citing historical precedence we discussed and saying we wanted everyone to stay united to keep fighting for the issues.

A pledged delegate from San Francisco who was on the call, David Serrano Sewall, emails while Clinton expressed her support for Obama, Ickes said "delegates can do what they want, any delegate can, but wanted us to hang with Hillary for now."

The Clinton aide said there's no power play here: Clinton just wants to make sure her supporters are slated in state delegates and sent to Denver. Her camp pointed to precedent: Bradley in 2000 and Dean in 2004 didn't formally release their delegates until the convention itself.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2008 12:31 pm
Hillary's mention of "precedence" for the many sins of politics is still playing the power game. I wouldn't vote for her if she were the last woman standing, and I've voted for many women in my day.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2008 12:36 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Lola wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
There are many many different forms of mental illness. Most are not self inflicted but some are.

http://www.webmd.com/anxiety-panic/mental-health-causes-mental-illness


Most of our problems are self inflicted. That's not the question. How able we are to do otherwise is the real issue. Most of us need help some of the time. Some much more than others. It's an over simplification, I know but I'm hungry and want to go eat dinner.


Not an over simplification at all. I think none of us are 100% self sufficient nor can any of us say that we never need help. Sometimes we cannot solve our problem unless we are willing to ask for or accept available help. I think, however, that we can sometimes fail to see the harmful consequences in the "help" we offer.


Obviously too much help or the wrong kind or help, the kind that encourages unnecessary dependency has harmful consequences. It's knowing what kind of help and how much that matters. But the use of the word choice indicates a judgement about motivation that cannot be known. It would be better to use another word that better describes what you mean.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2008 12:43 pm
Thomas wrote:
Just overheard McCain on MSNBC: "Obama says I"m running for George Bush's third term. I think he's running for Jimmy Carter's second." Once more, the "leader we can believe in" is reacting to Obama slogans instead of acting of his own initiative. If he keeps that up, Obama's campaign is looking pretty good.

Good for Obama.


Besides that, a person has to be over 40 to remember Jimmy Carter. It's not a very effective line anyway, although I agree with you and with Bear that these sound bite messages are what we all deserve. However, I think they're here to stay and we better learn how to use them for our causes. Obama seems especially good at it. In a way, it's an artistic endeavor in and of itself. When done well, it's an excellent form of condensed writing, like (excuse me for saying this) poetry.

Anyway, McCain's attempts are poor and make him look even more out of touch with this generation. Good for Obama again.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2008 12:55 pm
Hi HIgh Seas,

These would be classified as sins of the fathers............um I mean mothers, right? Mental problems of parents do contribute to mental illness. That's not the point Fox is trying to make. She seems to believe that, let's call it self destructive behavior, is caused by the choice of the behaver, which is only true on the surface. It's keen insight into the obvious, and I would say so shallow that it's untrue for any practical purpose. True choice is available only to those able to make responsible choices. That's where it gets complicated.

Nice to see you around.

High Seas wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
I already did; it identifies the causes of mental illness. I want you to identify for us which ones are self-inflicted? Name one if you can?


Cicerone - what are you talking about?! Countless mental problems are caused by lifestyle choices; that doesn't just mean excessive alcohol and drug intake, it can mean just eating lots and lots!

Here are 2 very serious mental disorders, autism and depression, both linked to excess body weight:

Quote:
...our study provides evidence that new-onset postpartum depression is associated with substantial weight retention after childbirth...
http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v16/n6/full/oby200871a.html


Quote:

Abstract: We report on elevated total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels in 22 individuals with Asperger syndrome compared with well-matched controls, after accounting for lifestyle variables and clinical symptomatology that could affect them. A potential role for dyslipidemia in the pathogenesis of some forms of autism is discussed. [Copyright 2007 Elsevier]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psychiatry Research

Jan2007, Vol. 149 Issue 1-3, p321-324

"Hypercholesterolemia in Asperger syndrome: Independence from lifestyle, obsessive-compulsive behavior, and social anxiety."

Author Affiliations:
1Center for Brain Health, HN-400, New York University School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA
2Department of Psychology, University of Bielefeld, Germany
3Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research, Orangeburg, NY, USA
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2008 01:02 pm
Lola wrote:
Besides that, a person has to be over 40 to remember Jimmy Carter.

Alright -- then it must be some other Jimmy Carter I remember. Wink

Lola wrote:
It's not a very effective line anyway, although I agree with you and with Bear that these sound bite messages are what we all deserve.

Although I happen to agree with Bear that the soundbite-ification of politics is unfortunate, that wasn't the point I was making in my post. My point was about McCains remarkable passivity.

This passivitgy shows on the soundbite level, but continues when you go to his webpage and read his statements on the political issues. The lack of initiative and original ideas in his campaign is appalling even when you compare him with his defeated Republican competition -- Mitt Romney for example. If I was a Republican, I'd hope McCain is consciously playing rope-a-dope. Because the alternative is that he's out of gas at the starting line of the general election campaign.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2008 01:05 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
What exactly is a "windfall profit"?


According to some Democrats, it is any national or worldwide condition that generates profit for big corporations. And, according to them, it should be confiscated by the government immediately.


Well, we are in a war; what's the difference between the limiting of profits during wartime in the past, and the limiting of profits now?

The oil companies are taking advantage of the world-wide situation in order to make truly record profits on the backs of the American consumer. And to a certain extent, every company does this. But the idea that this cannot be limited, ever, is ridiculous. We could cap oil company profits at the levels they are at RIGHT NOW and they would still be pulling in billions of dollars of profit PER QUARTER. The businesses would survive just fine, and we need the money worse then they need ever-expanding profits.

Cycloptichorn


I heard John Breaux say yesterday that when we had a wind fall profits tax in the past, it didn't result in an increase of production but a decrease. He said this as an argument against the idea. However, it seems to me that this would be another good thing about it. The high price of oil, or better yet a decrease in it's availability is one of the best green realities to come along. Make production of huge gas guzzlers a money losing deal, and we get smaller, more fuel efficient cars and no more resistence on the part of the car manufacturers. We get a high motivation for business to look for alternative fuels, etc. Long term, it looks like we win both ways with windfall profits tax. Economics is not by field, but it seems like it might be good both ways.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2008 01:05 pm
Thomas wrote:
Lola wrote:
Besides that, a person has to be over 40 to remember Jimmy Carter.

Alright -- then it must be some other Jimmy Carter I remember. Wink

Lola wrote:
It's not a very effective line anyway, although I agree with you and with Bear that these sound bite messages are what we all deserve.

Although I happen to agree with Bear that the soundbite-ification of politics is unfortunate, that wasn't the point I was making in my post. My point was about McCains remarkable passivity.

This passivitgy shows on the soundbite level, but continues when you go to his webpage and read his statements on the political issues. The lack of initiative and original ideas in his campaign is appalling even when you compare him with his defeated Republican competition -- Mitt Romney for example. If I was a Republican, I'd hope McCain is consciously playing rope-a-dope. Because the alternative is that he's out of gas at the starting line of the general election campaign.


Can't remember it that well - if you're not 40 years old, what's the max age you could have been during carter's term? 10 or 11?

As for McCain, he's an old guy. The likelihood is that he IS out of gas...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2008 01:10 pm
"Make production of huge gas guzzlers a money losing deal, and we get smaller, more fuel efficient cars and no more resistence on the part of the car manufacturers."

What real leaders would do is provide an incentive to car makers to make cars efficient immediately, not some token bullsh!t 30 MPG in 10 years or whatever. Do we have leaders who have the balls to DO IT NOW and not wait another 30 years?

Obama certainly is not one.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2008 01:11 pm
woiyo wrote:
"Make production of huge gas guzzlers a money losing deal, and we get smaller, more fuel efficient cars and no more resistence on the part of the car manufacturers."

What real leaders would do is provide an incentive to car makers to make cars efficient immediately, not some token bullsh!t 30 MPG in 10 years or whatever. Do we have leaders who have the balls to DO IT NOW and not wait another 30 years?

Obama certainly is not one.


That's funny, he's proposing that sort of thing through tax credits and raising of the fuel economy standards. Detroit screams bloody murder every time someone brings higher fuel efficiencies up, though...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Demand a plan - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 918
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 09/30/2020 at 01:14:10