Hillary: Authoritarian Socialist

The New York senator told the Democratic National Committee's winter meeting: "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 in an alternative energy fund." Take? Isn't that confiscation of private property? Author P.J. O'Rourke framed it perfectly on a recent CNBC's "Kudlow & Co.": She's "Hugo Chavez in a pants suit."
Taxing profits taxes people - Commentary - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

This isn't even funny! Since when in a free society does the government dictate that a companies profits be put into a fund to research a means to put that company out of buisiness? It's like telling the lumber industy to start investing their profits into plastics research.

It doesn't matter if it's Exxon or Pete's Hardware store, the government has the right to tax profits, not dictate how their spent!

Have a good one!:s4:

oil is the only utility not controlled by any governmental oversight. yes,the oil companies should be considered as dealers in a public utility. their product permeates every facet of our lives and at present we have no choice but to use it. even if we leave out the many petroleum based products on the market, any product that is shipped uses these fuels. almost all personal and public transportation relies on gasoline or diesel fuel and it is used to generate electricity (a controlled utility). though it can't be considered a true monopoly, that sort of power in the hands of a very few is the perfect environment for greed to run wild. take a good look and you'll see that it has.

since its beginning, the petroleum industry has held incredible political power. wielding their massive war chests like clubs they purchase politicians, shield themselves from justice and create political dynasties (look to our good buddy w). they have helped to create a world where they are necessary and they are wringing every last dime out of the situation. we would never allow our other utilities to gouge such massive profits from our pocketbooks, yet somehow these giants have escaped regulation and created an empire.

though i'm loathe to suggest that government stick its greedy paws into our lives any more than it already does, but the matter of public utilities is one of the few areas where they do belong. as usual, they are failing the public to line their own pockets.

I believe in the free market system, but 39 billion a quarter is a little much...

I wish i had money to invest in there stock.....


hillary has no good ideas..... she, like nancy, is a socialist ding bat.....

Found this in the story

"In fact, over the last 25 years, federal and state governments took $397 billion from the largest oil companies and another $1.1 trillion in taxes at the pump. In today's dollars, that's $2.2 trillion."

I'm not gonna lose sleep if these companies have to pay a few billion extra a year in tax. Government collects more tax at the pump then they do from these big oil companies. I believe in a free market but when you make that kind of money and theres kids starving and homeless then they too can help out. WTF is someone gonna do with almost 40billion dollar profit anyways?

Sorry, but real socialists want nothing to do with that liberal scumbag. She is a capitalist to the core; maybe one who wants the government to control some parts of the capitalist economy, but she is certainly not a socialist who advocates direct control over the means of production by the proletariat. Republicrats and Democans both have intimate love affairs with the corporate bourgeoisie in this country; it is totally ludicrous to think that anyone in either party would want the proletariat to seize the means of production, overthrow capitalism, and bring about a classless society.

Amen to the massive profits thing, thanks to uncontrolled 3.00+ a gallon gas and the squeezing of the elderly and poor on the heating oil issue the oil companies have been continously been raping us since the mid 70s, When gasoline doubled in '73-74' from 50 cents to a dollar and then hovered between 70 cents to 1.20 for a few years the oil giants found out we'd pay anything to have our cars, and then they proceeded to rape and pillage. It was no longer a market of supply and demand, but one that had a growing Demand and a market controlled by greed. Every "Oil Shortage" was nothing more than a contrivance by the oil companies to raise prices. The Government played along as they were most certainly complicent in sharing the wealth (Re-election campaign money etc.) Regans big push to de-regulate all industry has created a pool of greed by the corporations never seen before. When a comodity is a necessary fact of life (Electric, all utilities, fuel, some food, etc) it needs some regulation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

.... but she is certainly not a socialist who advocates direct control over the means of production by the proletariat....

---

i think you'll find that a socialist society is one where the state controls the means of production. the term you're looking for is communist. there are problems with both of these economic systems.

socialism requires a truly benevolent political system to operate under. with that much power in the hands of the state, the possibilities for abuse are far too great to entrust it to a chosen few. the coupling of a truly representative democracy with socialism should yield the optimal results, but that experiment has never been tried.

the major stumbling block for communism is size. on a small scale it gives everyone a say in how best to use the resources at hand and the equitable division of profit (yes, there is always profit of one sort or another in any system) is easily achieved. on larger scales communism become an unwieldy behemoth where a consensus can never be achieved. once again, this experiment has never been tried so this is merely a semi-educated opinion.

size seems to be the major problem with any system, economic or political. once the population hits a certain number there are just too many variables to oversee and the temptations of corruption become overwhelming.

size seems to be the major problem with any system, economic or political. once the population hits a certain number there are just too many variables to oversee and the temptations of corruption become overwhelming.Is there no alternative to Capitalism besides communism or socialism. Is there not a modified version of capitalism that keeps the money more evenly distributed. The society is now moving at an alarming rate to opposite extremes Poor and Rich. We need to play a little Robin Hood and lean out the rich. I mean, Multi million dollar salaries for bosses, come on now, this is a case of the rich feeding the rich and crapping on the poor. I'm pretty sure we could do better, Example: eliminate the FED. Those rich bankers have been raping us for too long. Isn't a government supposed to be in charge of it's own money supply, Most other countries are. It was a sad day when we turned our monetary system over to a bunch of greedy bankers. Nationalize the national debt. Throw all the foriegners out of the Debt package, China is into us for billions, kick them out before they have sufficient nuclear power to challenge us. Put government on a diet and legalize drugs, all drugs. start comprehensive treatment centers with all the cops and prosecutors that will lose their jobs. I have a hundred Ideas for change. Lets get started. Vote Obama 2008.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by medicinal

Is there no alternative to Capitalism besides communism or socialism. Is there not a modified version of capitalism that keeps the money more evenly distributed.

---

socialism with a dash of capitalism thrown in for incentive? that's the 1984 scenario, masses of complacent workers carrying out their appointed tasks and the few with more entrepreneurial tendencies overseeing the rest. that seems to be our goal at the moment and it's not a pretty picture.

downsized communal states cooperating within a loose capitalistic framework? my personal favorite and a beautiful utopian ideal. until you add in the expansionist ideologies of various political and religious groups. if you then add in the human tendency to turn petty grievances into all out warfare it becomes only a matter of time until these states merge to form nations at war.

capitalism tightly constrained by socialist programs to raise the standard of living among those who, for whatever reasons, cannot thrive in a cutthroat marketplace? this is the present agenda of american liberals and it has a few inherent flaws. deciding who bears the financial burden of those programs and the culture of entitlement which grows among those serviced by them being the most glaring faults.

there, i've given you three hybrid systems - any of which are perfectly workable. with proper political and ethical backing, any of them could lead to the equitable distribution of the society's wealth. any of them could be corrupted and used for the enrichment of the few at the expense of the many. economic ideologies alone cannot solve the sort of problems you wish to address.

there, i've given you three hybrid systems - any of which are perfectly workable. with proper political and ethical backing, any of them could lead to the equitable distribution of the society's wealth. any of them could be corrupted and used for the enrichment of the few at the expense of the many. economic ideologies alone cannot solve the sort of problems you wish to address.
__________________
So, isn't one of them better than what we have now, which is runaway capitalism or more correctly an ogliarchic plutocracy. The gap between the rich and poor is widening at such an alarming rate that a dictatorship is immenently the next progression. As Bush himself said, "it would be much easier if this was a Dictatorship". And if economic systems cant solve the problem, what's left, Divine intervention?