IAP Political Forum

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12237.html

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Friday announced an “Emergency Economic Plan” that would give families a stimulus check of $1,000 each, funded in part by what his presidential campaign calls “windfall profits from Big Oil.”

Details are in this six-page policy paper.

The first part of Obama’s plan is an emergency energy rebate ($500 to individual workers, $1,000 to families) as soon as this fall.

“This rebate will be enough to offset the increased cost of gas for a working family over the next four months,” Obama said. “Or, if you live in a state where it gets very cold in the winter, it will be enough to cover the entire increase in your heating bills. Or you could use the rebate for any of your other bills or even to pay down debt

Separately, Obama’s plan includes a $50 billion stimulus package that his campaign claims would save more than 1 million jobs.

Obama announced his plan 27 minutes after a Labor Department report showed unemployment hit a four-year high of 5.7 percent in July — the highest rate since March 2004, when it was 5.8 percent.

“We need to do more,” Obama said in a statement. “That’s why today I’m announcing a two-part emergency plan to help struggling families make ends meet and get our economy back on track.

McCain reacted to the surprisingly dour jobs report with a two-paragraph statement: "Across this country, Americans are hurting and today's job numbers are just the latest reminder of the economic challenges we face. ... Unlike Sen. Obama, I do not believe that raising taxes is the answer to our economic problems. There is no surer way to force jobs overseas than to raise taxes on businesses.”

Obama announced his plan for a windfall profits tax on oil companies on June 9 in Raleigh, N.C., as he launched a two-week economic tour after clinching the Democratic nomination.

Friday’s proposal says Obama “is proposing to offset the cost of his emergency energy rebates over the next five years by enacting a windfall profits tax on big oil companies.”   To which the oil companies have not sattes but will most likely raise prices and cust costs by firing people to cover and theft by the thieves in washington.

“Obama simply asks that big oil companies contribute a reasonable share of the windfall profits they receive from high oil prices over the next five years to pay for emergency assistance for families right now,” the campaign says. (Obama forgets to mention that the federal sand state taxes take in up to 5 times the profit the oil companies make on each gallon of gas sold.) If you remove the burdan on the american people in the form of FEDERAL and STATE taxes gas would be 40-50 cents cheaper a gallon!)

 

WTF does this have to do with Communism?

WTF is your problem with taxes for oil companies?

WTF are you doing still posting articles without any degree of personal opinion?

WTF are you still doing at IAP?

That's just funny stuff.

WTF dont you understand about the government collecting enough taxes.

WTF dont you undertsand about communism being taking from those taht suceed and earn to give to those that dont.

WTF are you not paying attention to that you cant see my comments in bold and italics.

WTF are you still doing at IAP?

 Abraxas...Keep in mind what we are dealing with;
 (http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:bkAxucOEd5Hq7M:http://www.lumosity.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/computer-monkey-210.jpg)

Reaganite, you either seriously misunderstand Communism or you seriously misunderstand Obama's plan.


I asked about your feelings toward taxes on oil companies because I honestly don't know what you think about them. Your post made no attempt to explain your position, so are you really that surprised I didn't know what you think about the issue?


Oh, the 3 poorly written sentances that virtually look like they were part of the article? Excuse me for not noticing them ::) .


Well, to start off... I'm a responsible and mature member... which is more then I can say for you.

You are not mature in any sense of the word as your first post in this thread was a personal attack on another member.

We all every companya nd person in this country pay enough if not too much taxes.

the government has ENOUGH of our money... they dont need any more.

I'm not gonna go into it with you about this.

I'll let the other members decide.


That reminds me. I use proper grammer and punctuation too...

But anyway... low income families are having trouble keeping up with the cost of gas, and seeing as this country has an inefficient public transportation system, how do you recommend we help them?

And what I find hilarious is that you'll assail Obama for using money we have (or will have) but then defend Bush for borrowing money from China, no doubt our next economic adversary.

Obama's plan has a short term impact on the massive profits that oil companies CONTINUOUSLY walk away with... and the other creates long term debt that my generation and I will have to pay off in a few decades.

I'm far more comfortable with Obama's plan then Bush's...

yes you can take time to check grammer and spelling, but sorry I try to tyep fast as I work.  Anyway, I HATE ALL POLITICIANS THAT SPEND MORE THEN TEHY TAKE IN...  REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS...

One of my MAJOR issues with bush is runaway spending...

For someone that thinks they know me you are pretty assinine to not remember that big issue.

Anyway, spelling and grammer and insulting others when they have not insulted you is not a sign of maturity.  Its may be the sign of a 18-19 year old who has time on his hand and thinks they know more then they actually do...

 AWWWWWW Brax you hurt Bonzo's feelings...
 (http://www.chewednews.com/Pictures/Lightmatter_chimp.jpg)
 The big bad government shouldn't take munnie away from the pooor liddle ole oil companies... it should give the pooor lidddle ole oil companies tax breaks...and let those damn irresponsibile common folk freeze in the dark.

You are a troll and he is not.

Yes, you've established this. So what do you propose to alleviate America's financial difficulties? People depend on government support, one example of this being, as Abraxas stated, the use of public transportation in the midst of the oil crisis. Obama's plan offers a means of acquiring the funds through taxes, which would be a responsible initiative.

so why not tax at 100% and distribute all weath? why cap it at 35%?

Thats not communism, that is a government policy with a socialistic streak. Big difference.

The welfare system that our governments have where they take money from people who succeed(taxation on income) and redistribute to people who don't earn money(welfare recipients) fits your criteria as well .

This isn't communism, it is a part of a mixed economy, part capitalism and part socialism.

IMO the thread title has nothing to do with the article, but maybe that is just me.

Because 100% would equal communism, wheras 35% is a mixed economy(part capitalism,part socialism).

There is a big difference between 35% tax and 100% tax.  :)

I'd like to chime in here with the "windfall" taxes for oil companies.

Can anyone explain how this is going to help at the gas pump?  I find it impossible to believe that we are going to see any relief because government takes more money from oil companies.  If anything, the cost of gas will just increase.

Also, the tax would not generate enough revenue to fix a severely deficient mass transit system (if you even believe that Washington would use the money for such a thing).  The problem I have with windfall taxes is that they are almost completely useless.  You tax the oil companies, the price of gas goes up, and then you only generate enough money to give me a $500 check?  This to me seems like a very bad idea.  It is almost like people want to "punish" oil companies by taxing them, without realizing that the price of gas is just going to go up as a result.  This will increase the cost of EVERYTHING if it costs more to ship things and manufacture goods.

It also sets a bad precedent.  Once you start down this path of "windfall profits" tax, you basically tell companies that success in America is going to cost them big-time.  We're already having trouble keeping companies here in America, this is just one more reason for them to pack up and move jobs overseas.

I think there is an infinitely better solution.  It doesn't increase taxes, it decreases them, and it also tackles the very root of the problem - decreasing our demand for oil.  Think about something like this:

1)  Leave oil companies alone - don't raise taxes, don't cut taxes, just keep the status quo.
2)  Give the auto manufacturers an incentive tax break that goes something like this - for every 10 miles/gallon more efficient you make your cars, you'll receive a 10% tax break (good up to 50%).  To qualify, you'd have to produce x number of vehicles per year with that fuel efficiency.  Perhaps the numbers need to be adjusted, but you get the picture. 

You are essentially telling auto manufacturers to invest heavily on making fuel-efficient vehicles and letting them know that the government will effectively subsidize their transition.  I bet within 5 years, you'd see vehicles getting nearly 100 mpg.  Could you imagine the effect that would have?  We could decrease our consumption of gasoline (and hence oil) by a huge amount.  You even make a dent in the emmissions, so you can call that a bonus.

What about people that can't afford those new fuel-efficient vehicles.  Yes, they benefit too.  As demand plummets, so to does the price of the commodity.

And what about oil companies.  Surely, we don't need millions of Americans jobless when these companies take a massive hit to their profits.  They are companies, and they will adjust to outside pressure.  Most will probably start realizing that oil is no longer a money maker, and start investing in alternative energy as a matter of survival.  So, this also helps spur development of new technologies.

This sort of plan, in my opinion, has a chance of really fixing the problem or at the very least, making it much more managable.  I think it is a rosy outlook, for all things to go perfectly according to plan, but I can certainly see how such a plan could work.

To me, this makes more sense than a stinking $500 check and is much more powerful when it comes to fixing the problem in the long term.

Not to Reaganite!  ;D

Meanwhile, McCain is lying about how his proposal to allow offshore drilling will reduce the price of gasoline within the foreseeable future, and shills for a gas tax "holiday" which will:

• Not lower the price of gasoline, but
• Increase the profits of big oil, and
• Delay the day we begin to look at alternative fossil fuels seriously, while
• Starving funding for road and bridge maintenance.

Is anyone else just tired of having politicians lie to us?

McCain promises that a key means of lowering gasoline prices is by opening up more coastline to offshore drilling. The trouble is, even the conservative Bush administration has proven this is not true:

(http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/ocs.gif)

According to the Energy Information Administration, removing restrictions on offshore drilling would, at peak — about 20 years from now — add about 0.2% to world production, with an “insignificant” effect on the price of oil.

To say otherwise is a lie...a lie currently being promoted by "straight talking" John McCain.

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

ok so again if you think the government is good enough to redistribute 35% of the wealth why not 50 ot 100%

Because then there would be absolutely no incentive to work, if the government are redistributing between 50% -100% of what you earn. Why would any normal person want to work hard under those conditions?

All western countries have a mix of capitalism and socialism. They tax peoples earnings so as to collect monies for roads, hospitals, schools, defence etc etc as well as redistributing to other less fortunate people eg pensioners, disabled, unemployed. But they don't tax the majority of your earnings as they want to encourage you to work hard, and the best way they can do that is letting you keeping the majority of what you earn.

All western countries have a mix like this. Obviously there are different emphasis on the socialism or capitalism depending upon the country. For instance, Europe in particular Scandanavian countries are more leaning to the socialism part of the mix than the USA does.

Not meaning to be rude Pathetic, but it doesn't strike me as your most intellectual question ever, asking what is the difference between taxing at 35% and taxing at 100%. Maybe I am missing something here  :-\

The other point, is what government with a policy of taxing between 50% - 100% would ever get voted in? I can't think of anyone besides the permanently unemployed, the insane and few raving communist supporters who would ever vote for such an extreme taxation implementation. To say it is not realistic would be a slight understatement  :)

if you make 200k under Obama you will have a 50% tax rate when you include.. Fed taxes, SS taxes, State Taxes, sales taxes... etc etc etc..

 Link??  Proof??  Source??  Quote??
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:RUixjIku4JOceM:http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b114/flacos/chimp-toilet-poster1.jpg)Or is this right out of your ass as usual Bonzo?

Which of those taxes is Obama proposing be raised? By what percent? What's the net percentage difference in overall tax rates between current tax rates and the rates if Obama's proposals are enacted?