You are Big oil

[daihashi]

I like how you list no references or sources to back yourself up, while presenting an extremely biased viewpoint. I'm sure you feel right at home on the Internet. But really, not even so much as a link to a blog? You can do better.

Do you own a 401k? If you do you know that the options you can invest are actually collections of various stocks. Some/most of which include Oil.

Really it's common sense and not necessarily something that can be verified as you would need access to all the different 401k programs to source it.

daihashi Reviewed by daihashi on 08-24-2008. You are Big oil This is great Nobama wants a WINDFALL profit tax on big oil give you a 1000 bucks...... I could use it Ill tell ya, BUT Ask your MOM and DAD, look at you prospectus, statement, whatever...... Rating: 5

[Psycho4Bud]

I had to do a bit of a clean up in aisle seven just now. Lets keep this thread without the insults and directed to the topic.

Thank you much for your cooperation....

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[daihashi]

So is the premise of this thread that everybody, or even most, who recieve the $1000 tax rebate are in fact shareholders in oil companies? And I suppose the taxes based on profit limits will result in a stock dip so steep that it will result in a whole thousand dollar loss for each shareholder?

$1000 x 300 million population = $300,000,000,000. And people wonder why I was against the 1st and second Tax Rebates Bush sent out.

Yes.. 300 billion will effect the profits of oil companies to where it trickles down to the consumer. What you fail to realize is that a 401k is an investment, and while you may not lose $1k... you are still doing the opposite of what a 401k should do and that is build money/funds.

In addition even if yo ulose $100 from your 401k... that $100 had an oppurtunity to turn into Thousands or tens of thousands but now it will never have that chance since it's lost.

I don't buy any of this thread, but didn't George Bush basically do the same thing a few months ago? Sent about $200-$600 to everybody as an "economic stimulus package", which every economist later agreed did NOTHING to stimulate the economy, while wasting millions in public money.

I thought it was stupid also, but apparently our reasons for thinking the stimulus package was stupid are for different reasons.

This particular plan of Obama's will do very little if anything, but you'd have to be a fool to think the Republican economic policies have been any wiser. McSame was all ready to jump on the 3-month gas-tax break that would amount to a mammoth $34 savings for the average American. Nothing but a little (illusionary) gift to buy some votes, while not actually accomplishing anything to fix a broken economy.

It's not tax breaks that make me think that Republicans will do any better. It's the amount that Obama plans on taxing corporations. Currently Companies have some incentive to be here. If you hurt their profits companies will cut jobs or move their factories elsewhere that it's cheaper to manufacturer. Combine a bad economy with a high unemployment rate and it's just a recipe for disaster.

It's no secret that companies will cut their employees if their profit line is hurt. Look at Wachovia very recently and Historically HP/Compaq. Two very real situations at what happens when a companies profits are hurt.

Democrat or Republican, Americans still seem bent on voting for the safe 'ol candidates that will tweak the status quo while the nation circles the drain. Of course you get anybody with some fiscal responsibility and actual respect for the constitution (aka, Ron Paul), and joe-schmo voter thinks you're an "extremist" for actually taking the action necessary to bring about the real change that they keep demanding but refuse to vote for.

I didn't want either of these candidates, Just like you I would like Ron Paul with a strong VP to fill in the gaps. However there is nothing wrong with voting for the status quo. America is really not a bad place to live currently. I think, despite what many others will try to have you believe, that we are one of the greatest countries on this planet and I am PROUD to call this my home.

[McDanger]

"Usually you think of pot smokers as being hippies who are more liberally inclined... it just seems strange that there are so few of them here, and so many libertarians."

So much for stereotypes. Not all pot smokers fit the hippie stereotype - not even close.

You are right of course. That is because us libertarians love FREEDOM, and hate Gov't intrusion into our lives.
I am a proud Libertarian. GO LIBERTY

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

$1000 x 300 million population = $300,000,000,000. And people wonder why I was against the 1st and second Tax Rebates Bush sent out.

Yes.. 300 billion will effect the profits of oil companies to where it trickles down to the consumer. What you fail to realize is that a 401k is an investment, and while you may not lose $1k... you are still doing the opposite of what a 401k should do and that is build money/funds.

In addition even if yo ulose $100 from your 401k... that $100 had an oppurtunity to turn into Thousands or tens of thousands but now it will never have that chance since it's lost.

Sorry daihashi but your numbers are pretty skewed here. The rebate isn't going out to each and every single American, it's going out to the "middle class", however that's defined (probably $150,000 a year or less as he defines it). 300 million Americans include children and the homeless, both of which probably make up more than the working adults.

Now I'm completely pulling numbers out of my ass here, but for the sake of creating a ballpark figure:

300 million Americans.
lets say 250 million middle class as defined by Obama
divided by an average family size of, lets say, 6 people: 41.66 million x 1000
= $41.66 Billion
(again, ballpark figure)

Still a huge waste of money, and lets face it; Dems and Reps have become masters of waste.







Regarding the original thread; I've seen no evidence that big-oil taxation is actually paying for this $1000 rebate. Obama wants to put a profits-tax cap on the oil companies, he wants to institute a $1000 rebate; nowhere has he said that they're going to directly take $41.66 billion from oil companies and give it directly to the American people. Oil company taxation and the rebate are two separate issues. Just being new doesn't make the two initiaves linked. You could just as easily say the rebate is coming from income tax, property tax, or any other source that makes it's way into the government coffers.

[daihashi]

Regarding the original thread; I've seen no evidence that big-oil taxation is actually paying for this $1000 rebate. Obama wants to put a profits-tax cap on the oil companies, he wants to institute a $1000 rebate; nowhere has he said that they're going to directly take $41.66 billion from oil companies and give it directly to the American people. Oil company taxation and the rebate are two separate issues. Just being new doesn't make the two initiaves linked. You could just as easily say the rebate is coming from income tax, property tax, or any other source that makes it's way into the government coffers.

You're right.. my numbers were skewed. I don't know what I was thinking multiplying by 300 million.

In regards to tax rebate and oil companies:

Obama Calls for Tax Rebates Funded by Windfall Profits Tax on Oil Companies - The Tax Justice Digest

from ctj.org:

Presidential candidate Barack Obama has talked up several proposals relating to energy and taxes over the past couple weeks, including a one-time tax rebate of $500 per spouse that would be funded by a five-year windfall profits tax on oil companies.

Obama's 'emergency' economic plan - Mike Allen - Politico.com

From politico:

Fridayâ??s proposal says Obama â??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.â?�

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Obama calls for windfall profits tax, ‘emergency’ energy rebate « - Blogs from CNN.com
From CNN:

Barack Obama said Friday that a windfall profits tax should be imposed on the oil industry to subsidize a $1,000 "emergency" rebate for consumers struggling with surging gas prices.

Lastly in one of the artices Obama claims to be able to save 1 million American jobs by the rebates.. I ask you... what do you think will happen when companies are being taxed upwards of 40% (I believe that's where Obama wants to move the tax to) and start cutting jobs. Let's say that the unemployment rate only rises 1%.. if you go by the 300 million population figure that's about 3 million jobs that would be lost. If you look at it from the 41.66 million of the adults that would get the rebate.. then that's still 416k jobs that would be lost. Does that really make sense to you? Let's help Americans save jobs by creating conditions that make companies have to cut jobs. I don't understand that logic at all.

I predict that if he get's that 40% tax that there will be much more than a 1% unemployment rate increase.

Lastly.. what right do we have to tell a company what they have to make? What right does someone have to tell me how much I'm allowed to make before heavy taxation?

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Thankyou Daihashi! I'm glad some posters are still making arguments based on evidence rather than wishy-washy rhetoric. I have a policy of remaining skeptical 'till I see some solid evidence, and this is the first I've seen in this thread so far.

[khronik]

Wrong. That's YOUR definition, so long as you define socialism in that way you can assure yourself that you don't support a socialist.
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Does Obama advocate the government owning or administering the means of production and distribution of goods? Of course not. Maybe some services like health insurance, but that's hardly socialism.

Really? I really thought that I had heard him say point blank that he would use the "windfall profits tax, aka, theft of private companies money" to give Americans the $1000. I am willing to believe you on this if again you could provide a source other than you.

I did look, and while I found plenty of sources where he said he wanted to create a windfall profits tax, and plenty where he said he wanted to rescind the payroll tax, I didn't find any where he linked them. I did find plenty of conservative news outlets that linked them though.

That being said, sounds like a really nice thing he wants to do for little ol' us, since he wants to double the capitol gains tax, (source, Barak Obama in the democratic primary debates) which is currently @ I believe 15%ish and where he would like it to be @ I believe 28%ish. Nice guy! Hope you don't own any stock! That $1000 will come in real handy I guess come tax time.:thumbsup:

He said he wants to raise it to somewhere between 20 and 28 percent. He knows as well as you do that raising it too high is counterproductive.

Definitions of incoherent on the Web:

• without logical or meaningful connection

Perfect! Don't forget Bush lied people died, the government blew up the levies in N.O., the 911 conspiracy, and oh yeah, global warming!
Thanks for the real life example of incoherent!
:S2::S2::S2::S2:

You still haven't answered my question, as to what "Real American Values" means. Since you were implying that you have to be conservative to have "Real American Values", I pointed out the most widely-known fuck-up by American conservatives.

$1000 x 300 million population = $300,000,000,000.

Not everyone pays the payroll tax. Babies, unemployed, old people, etc.

Do you own a 401k? If you do you know that the options you can invest are actually collections of various stocks. Some/most of which include Oil.

No. I'm a grad student now. But I do have an account invested in mutual funds, with about $20,000 in it. It's been losing money steadily for the last two years. Somehow I doubt Obama is going to make it worse than it is now.

Lastly.. what right do we have to tell a company what they have to make? What right does someone have to tell me how much I'm allowed to make before heavy taxation?

One typical response is that the oil company profits are made at the expense of the environment. Therefore, these companies should be taxed extra to make up for the environmental problems caused by what they produce.

Yeah they make 8%...and they do all the work.

the Goverment takes in taxes that make, what, like..... 16-40 and more cents per gallon for what? NOTHING... red tape?

8% of all the oil sold in the US is still a fuckload of money. And where do you think paved roads come from? The magic road fairy? Gas taxes are a bargain, considering what we get from them.

Just because I support Obama in this election, doesn't mean I'm a liberal. Hell, I voted for Michael Badnarik in 2004. He was the libertarian candidate. I've always been against the two-party system, but Obama has made a career out of listening to his constituents instead of party ideology. I think that as president, he would continue to do the same.

[Bong30]

No. I'm a grad student now.

^^^^ Generaly speaking, More college you have the DUMBER YOU ARE.....its called brain washing, started in elementry school, and fallowed up by the media......just shake it off

But I do have an account invested in mutual funds, with about $20,000 in it. It's been losing money steadily for the last two years.

Who took the House and Senate 2 years ago??????????????????

Dumb ass dems......... Nancy Stretch Pelosi, Harry Im a Idiot Reid


Somehow I doubt Obama is going to make it worse than it is now.



Weednomics....here we go

If you have 100 joints...

the goverment only takes 15 joints right now....

Nobama wants to take 28 Joints from you.....

who do you vote for now?
.

its called weednomics.....:thumbsup:

[daihashi]

Does Obama advocate the government owning or administering the means of production and distribution of goods? Of course not. Maybe some services like health insurance, but that's hardly socialism.

No but it's a socialized service. Which comes out of our pockets one way or another. Increase Capital Gains tax and guess what's going to happen.. unemployment rate will shoot up. Companies want to protect their profits. So guess who still ends up paying for this.. WE do in the form of a higher unemployment rate.

Hey we may be unemployed and starving, but at least we have health insurance :thumbsup:

I did look, and while I found plenty of sources where he said he wanted to create a windfall profits tax, and plenty where he said he wanted to rescind the payroll tax, I didn't find any where he linked them. I did find plenty of conservative news outlets that linked them though.

What are you talking about here? No one ever spoke about rescinding the payroll tax and as far as I know neither has Obama. He has talked about rescinding the Bush tax cuts. If I'm wrong please let me know. I sincerely don't recall the payroll tax; my brain is on overload these days.

And he has specifically said that the stimulus package would be funded over the next 5 years by a windfall profits tax placed on companies. I'm not sure how much clearer it needs to be.

Here are some non-conservative sites I posted earlier in the thread:

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Obama calls for windfall profits tax, â??emergencyâ?? energy rebate « - Blogs from CNN.com

Obama's 'emergency' economic plan - Mike Allen - Politico.com

Obama Calls for Tax Rebates Funded by Windfall Profits Tax on Oil Companies - The Tax Justice Digest

He said he wants to raise it to somewhere between 20 and 28 percent. He knows as well as you do that raising it too high is counterproductive.

Cap gains rate: How high would Obama go? - Jun. 20, 2008

Correct... he does want to raise it from 15% to between 20-28%. Do you honestly think that 5% more of a companies profits is not a big deal??? How do you think companies make budgets for.. oh.. let's say raises, benefits, new hires. What factors do you think a company takes into account when trying to price their product.. profit is one of them... Trust me having worked for a number of fortune 500's where all companies deal in very large numbers.... 5% is a massive increase. And in all likely hood he'll probably move the number somewhere closer to 23-24%. I believe that article I posted outlined something like that.

Let's do some math.. company XYZ made $4billion in profits last year and got hit with a 15% tax..

$4,000,000,000 - 15% = 600,000,000 or $600 Million.

Now let's increase that to 20%

$4,000,000,000 - 20% = 800,000,000 or $800 million or 1/5th of their profits.

now let's set that in the middle at 24%

$4,000,000,000 - 24% = 960,000,000 almost 1 billion dollars.

The figure for the full 28% is 1.2 billion.

That is a substantial chunk of money that you are now taking from companies.. which in turn takes away money from investors. Investors sell due to declining profits.. companies cut jobs to appease investor and to save it's profits.

Look at Wachovia bank very recently when it reported it's losses. It cut thousands of jobs right there on the spot without even batting an eye.

If you own a home then you know that even though the numbers are small.. there is a pretty substantial increase between 2.8% tax and 3.4% tax. For my home the difference is from 4k to almost 5k. That is significant despite such a small increase.

It works the same for companies who EMPLOY YOU... who make the products YOU use.. who provide services YOU need. Do you think that these people won't roll the tax over onto you somehow either through job layoffs or increase in the cost of products and services?

In the end we all suffer for capital gains.

You still haven't answered my question, as to what "Real American Values" means. Since you were implying that you have to be conservative to have "Real American Values", I pointed out the most widely-known fuck-up by American conservatives.

This disgusts me. You are obviously wanting to lash out against people who may have a tendency to lean to the right. Honestly I think that coined term is a load of Bologney. I have a very strong moral core and a concrete value system that does not align with conservatives or liberals perfectly. Yet people want to label me. Toss aside your labels that are used at attempt to insult others. If you're conservative then embrace it (as many conservatives already do) and if you're liberal then stop being chicken shit and just say that this is what you believe (honestly most liberals do seem to be ashamed of the word liberal and I've never understood why).

Now if someone were to say it is not in the United States best interest to elect Obama then I would have to STRONGLY agree.

Not everyone pays the payroll tax. Babies, unemployed, old people, etc.

Yes.. apparently I was high when I wrote that. Good job repeating what someone else already pointed out :thumbsup:

No. I'm a grad student now. But I do have an account invested in mutual funds, with about $20,000 in it. It's been losing money steadily for the last two years. Somehow I doubt Obama is going to make it worse than it is now.

You realize that you can control that account right? If you are losing money than that is just poor investment.

Might I recommend some books on learning to read the market from the pioneer himself Benjamin Graham?

Check out the Intelligent Investor and Security Analysis. Both are excellent reads. If you're losing money then that is no one's fault but you're own. This is a free market society and because the government doesn't control every aspect of that the condition of a stock can go in either direction. However through careful analysis and calculation you can determine if a company will be profitable in the long term or not.

Key word being LONG TERM. Investing is a long term thing. You won't make much money if you are doing short term investing.

Do you even know what is in your mutual fund?

Either way just from your response it seems you have little experience in the way of finances. I really didn't need you to throw a number out there, but since you did 20k is not that much. It's a good starting point though.

You are in control of your own money. You don't want to lose any more money but don't know how to invest.. PULL IT OUT and invest in a bond or CD or something else with a crappy vested amount value. At least you won't be losing money.

You always have a choice. This is America, don't put your losses off on someone else.

One typical response is that the oil company profits are made at the expense of the environment. Therefore, these companies should be taxed extra to make up for the environmental problems caused by what they produce.

If that is the typical response then tell me why are we increasing the capital gains tax. Why don't we impose an environmental tax (which I believe already exists but have to verify) on the companies?

This seems like a poor rebuttal. Try again khronik.

8% of all the oil sold in the US is still a fuckload of money. And where do you think paved roads come from? The magic road fairy? Gas taxes are a bargain, considering what we get from them.

You're right.. it is a shit ton of money. Now take 30% of that 8%... That's a pretty hefty chunk you just took out of that 8%. 1/3 of that is gone now. Where do you think jobs, benefits, raises, cheap products and services come from? Certainly not from heavy taxation of companies!

but Obama has made a career out of listening to his constituents instead of party ideology. I think that as president, he would continue to do the same.

2 terms in the senate constitutes a career?

Name 5 major accomplishments Obama has made during his time in the senate.

Please provide sources and elaborate how these were 'accomplishments' when compared to other long standing politicians.

Even other senators who back Barack Obama can't name any of his accomplishments

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o[/YOUTUBE]