"He isn't offering any solutions to help Americans pay for high gas prices. Instead, he's proposing a gas tax holiday that's nothing more than a Washington stunt," Obama said. "I was for the idea back then, but I've learned from my mistake, because I don't think it's right to say you're offering families relief when you're just boosting oil company profits." Obama says McCain's gas tax plan would "actually do real harm" and take "$3 billion a month out of the highway trust fund and hand it over to the oil companies."
How does not collecting a tax become giving that money (that is not collected) to the oil companies? I'm glad to hear him admit to learning from his mistakes, if only he was learning...
Obama's plan for relief includes putting a windfall profits tax on oil companies, using the proceeds to help Pennsylvania families pay their heating and cooling bills.
How is that not a program of wealth distribution and what is a fair profit? Is this like the obscenity laws where the rules is one of "I know it when I see it"? I want to know why a company that makes $10B in profit off of $116B in revenue is considered to be making an unfair amount of money while a company that makes $15M profit off of $100M revenue is not.
"During the Nuremburg trials, part of what made us different was even after these Nazis had performed atrocities that no one had ever seen before, we gave them a day in court that taught the entire world about who we are, but also about principles of the rule of law," he said. "Now, the Supreme Court upheld that principle. ... John McCain thinks the Supreme Court was wrong. I think the Supreme Court was right."
Yes we did do that. When did we do it? After the war was over, not during.
Yes we did do that. When did we do it? After the war was over, not during.
We'll just get Kim Jong-il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to surrender and we'll have won the war on terror! No problem, right?!
You had me on the windfall profits. You lost me on trying to say that we can simply wait until we've completed a world-wide witch hunt to start treating people like people again.
These prisoners should get their day in court or they should be treated as POWs.
Agreed.
I'm not an economist, but my view is that the "windfall profits tax" is geared towards the oil companies because the evidence (highest profits ever, even when oil is at obscene prices, increasing at-the-pump prices at such a high rate, unfair business practices, etc) suggests that they are artificially inflating the price to make greater profits. If this is true, then we should have more than just a tax, but at least it's something.
Haven't they (big oil) been investigated multiple times by congress and no proof was ever found of them using unfair business practices?
If they are found to have been doing nefarious and illegal things to increase the price then yes, they should pay a fine. If, however, it is a case of a global market gone mad for oil then I see no reason to punish them.
It is also important to note that the price of oil has shot up in part because the dollar has fallen so low. I found an interesting article full of charts that goes into this: How Oil and Gas Prices Fare in Dollar vs. Euro Terms. The article shows that even though the price has gone up in both currencies the rise in the price in dollars has far outpaced the rise in the price in Euros.
If you do a little more looking you will also see the typical posturing quotes of:
Republican Senator/Representative: "See, no price gouging or nothin', move along, nothing to see here." Democratic Senator/Representative: "How could they not find evidence of price gouging and collusion? Clearly the oil execs have Bush and the Republicans in their back pocket!"
Evidence has been found of gas stations taking part in price gouging but there is not enough evidence of system wide antics that would indicate the oil companies themselves were engaged in unfair business practices.
I tried to only search (and read) sites that would be regarded as unbiased by most people.
I also found this Obama Requests Investigation into Whether Corporations are Restricting Consumer Access to Alternative Fuels on Obama's Senate page but it looks like the blocking is probably attributable to the corporation not wanting the station to use its brand name to sell any fuel that it does not make. You could make a bad analogy and compare it to the McDonalds corporation not allowing their franchise stores to sell locally made food under the same roof.
Update: Further proof it may be the US government's fault that oil is so expensive and not the oil companies.
Oil futures are hitting a new milestone near $140 a barrel, a dramatic surge analysts attributed to the weakening dollar. Light, sweet crude for July delivery rose to a trading record of $139.89 a barrel Monday, but retreated slightly to trade up $4 at $138.86 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
The dollar fell on a weak report on New York state manufacturing activity, analysts said. Many investors buy commodities such as oil as a hedge against inflation when the dollar falls. Also, a weaker dollar makes oil less expensive to investors dealing in other currencies.
Many analysts believe the dollar's protracted decline is a major factor behind oil's doubling in price over the past year.
A young Muslim woman said she and another woman were refused seats directly behind Barack Obama — and in front of TV cameras — at a Detroit rally because they wear head scarfs.
Hebba Aref said Wednesday that she and Shimaa Abdelfadeel were among 20,000 supporters who gathered to see the Democratic presidential hopeful on Monday at the Joe Louis Arena when the groups they were with were separately invited by Obama campaign volunteers to sit behind the podium. But Aref said the volunteers told members of both parties in separate discussions that women wearing hijabs, the traditional Muslim head scarves, weren't included in the invitation and couldn't sit behind the podium.
Aref and her friends complained to the campaign, and after those complaints and an inquiry from Politico, Obama's director of advance, Emmett S. Beliveau, called her to apologize.
An Obama aide also noted that the campaign has no policy against the candidate's appearing with women in headscarves: The next morning at Wayne State University, Obama posed for a picture with a student wearing a hijab.
Unfortunately, there are idiots that think Obama is Muslim (when he isn't) AND (even worse) they think that being Muslim makes someone unfit to lead the nation. It sucks, but that is the sad state of American politics. Maybe when he runs for his second term American politics will be more enlightened.
Unfortunately, there are idiots that think Obama is Muslim (when he isn't) AND (even worse) they think that being Muslim makes someone unfit to lead the nation. It sucks, but that is the sad state of American politics. Maybe when he runs for his second term American politics will be more enlightened.
I find it especially hilarious (read: infuriating) when alleged Constitutional stalwarts say that a Muslim shouldn't be able to run for President. I recall something in this document I once read that mentioned something about "no religious tests" being required for governmental office.
It's funny in the same way that Christians spouting hatred for Muslims is funny. "Love thy neighbor," eh?
Unfortunately, there are idiots that think Obama is Muslim (when he isn't) AND (even worse) they think that being Muslim makes someone unfit to lead the nation. It sucks, but that is the sad state of American politics. Maybe when he runs for his second term American politics will be more enlightened.
I find it especially hilarious (read: infuriating) when alleged Constitutional stalwarts say that a Muslim shouldn't be able to run for President. I recall something in this document I once read that mentioned something about "no religious tests" being required for governmental office. It's funny in the same way that Christians spouting hatred for Muslims is funny. "Love thy neighbor," eh?
Having the first Black, female, Hispanic, Asian, etc. President means little to me. When we have the first openly atheist President, I will know the nation has finally grown up.
I think that even the idea of having an openly atheist president won't be coming for at least a decade. People cling to the idea of a higher power far too much to elect someone who doesn't believe in the same thing they do.
I doubt that having an openly atheist president won't be coming for at least a decade. People cling to the idea of a higher power far too much to elect someone who doesn't believe in the same thing they do.
This decade?! It isn't going to happen in my lifetime, probably not in my kid's lifetime. Possibly, it will not happen until long after current world civilizations have all crumbled and new civilizations have sprung up. I have no faith in the faithful.
I didn't say this decade, I said at least a decade. I would like to hope that people can change somewhat in ten years, but it is a very unlikely scenario.
Obama could win vote, lose election . Obama did a great job working the delegate system in the primaries. Can he translate it to the general election? Do those same districts match up at all? Is his network so specialized to the nature of the Democratic primary that it can not be quickly adapted to the realities of the general election?
I don't know what algorithm they used to make that, but I can't see Michigan ever going Republican, which is what they predict in the "no toss up states" section. Maybe in the UP, but nobody lives up there anyway.
I don't know what algorithm they used to make that, but I can't see Michigan ever going Republican ...
Looking at the survey data it looks like it's compiled from three polls, all done within the last month. The link above (which shows voting data from the last three presidential elections) shows a gradual decline in support for Democratic candidates.
I was just going through my collection of canned Obama fundraiser emails and I had to laugh.
They go on and on about how hard it will be to beat McCain in the fall and how important it is that you send them money to show the world that Obama can beat McCain. Meanwhile, doesn't Obama have a huge war chest compared to McCain?
One of the mailings brings up the 527 groups. It is the same mailing that says Obama broke his pledge about using the government funding (and its limits) because he's worried about the unlimited money funneled through 527 groups. McCain is not going to get the support of the 527 groups! The majority of those (on the right) are adversarial to McCain. Obama has a lot more friendly 527 groups on his side than McCain does.
What was with his patriotism speech and Wesley Clark? Didn't Clinton fire Clark? Why am I getting the feeling one of Obama's tactics is to send out a surrogate to do or say something about McCain just so Obama can give a speech about it a few days later to look like he is taking the high road?
Why am I getting the feeling one of Obama's tactics is to send out a surrogate to do or say something about McCain just so Obama can give a speech about it a few days later to look like he is taking the high road?
Because it's a brilliant strategy that's only transparent to people in the know, people who are the vast minority? ^_~
What was with his patriotism speech and Wesley Clark? Didn't Clinton fire Clark? Why am I getting the feeling one of Obama's tactics is to send out a surrogate to do or say something about McCain just so Obama can give a speech about it a few days later to look like he is taking the high road?
A campaign can try and shut up attack groups but I don't think they actually can effectively do that. I doubt Bush wanted to attack Kerry on his service record and swift boat him, I think his campaign did. Campaigns are more then one person, you can tell your groups to step in line but in the end a lot of the outside groups have their own funding and independent status and they are going to do what they feel is right to get you elected. We live in a country with free speech, people are going to speak up in ways a candidate doesn't want. Regardless of even this fact, the tactic is the OLDEST in the book, used by everyone who has ever run for president ever... A near impossible move to make and the best way to make a point that is too hot for the cannidate to directly handle.
On one hand, I understand that pandering to religious sentiment is pretty-much required to hold any amount of power in the US, let alone to be elected president.
On the other hand, Obama has now stepped over a line that I'd rather he not have crossed. I'm done compromising with idiots, and it saddens me that compromising with idiots is necessary to prevent other idiots from starting wars.
While I'll probably still vote for him, this alone has ensured that he will not receive another dime of my money, and has definitely put him a few steps closer to being just another politician.
Comments
Face it, Steve, without FOX News and Rush Limbaugh, you would have nothing to say about politics.
How does not collecting a tax become giving that money (that is not collected) to the oil companies? I'm glad to hear him admit to learning from his mistakes, if only he was learning... How is that not a program of wealth distribution and what is a fair profit? Is this like the obscenity laws where the rules is one of "I know it when I see it"? I want to know why a company that makes $10B in profit off of $116B in revenue is considered to be making an unfair amount of money while a company that makes $15M profit off of $100M revenue is not. Yes we did do that. When did we do it? After the war was over, not during.
You had me on the windfall profits. You lost me on trying to say that we can simply wait until we've completed a world-wide witch hunt to start treating people like people again.
These prisoners should get their day in court or they should be treated as POWs.
I'm not an economist, but my view is that the "windfall profits tax" is geared towards the oil companies because the evidence (highest profits ever, even when oil is at obscene prices, increasing at-the-pump prices at such a high rate, unfair business practices, etc) suggests that they are artificially inflating the price to make greater profits. If this is true, then we should have more than just a tax, but at least it's something.
If they are found to have been doing nefarious and illegal things to increase the price then yes, they should pay a fine. If, however, it is a case of a global market gone mad for oil then I see no reason to punish them.
It is also important to note that the price of oil has shot up in part because the dollar has fallen so low. I found an interesting article full of charts that goes into this: How Oil and Gas Prices Fare in Dollar vs. Euro Terms. The article shows that even though the price has gone up in both currencies the rise in the price in dollars has far outpaced the rise in the price in Euros.
TheWhaleShark, I believe both you and Steve are in agreement. The "War on Terror" is Orwellian profiteering at best.
Congress Takes Aim at 'Big Oil' - by Steve Forbes (June 2007)
Gas Prices Legitimate, Study Says - NY Times (May 2006)
If you do a little more looking you will also see the typical posturing quotes of:
Republican Senator/Representative: "See, no price gouging or nothin', move along, nothing to see here."
Democratic Senator/Representative: "How could they not find evidence of price gouging and collusion? Clearly the oil execs have Bush and the Republicans in their back pocket!"
Evidence has been found of gas stations taking part in price gouging but there is not enough evidence of system wide antics that would indicate the oil companies themselves were engaged in unfair business practices.
I tried to only search (and read) sites that would be regarded as unbiased by most people.
I also found this Obama Requests Investigation into Whether Corporations are Restricting Consumer Access to Alternative Fuels on Obama's Senate page but it looks like the blocking is probably attributable to the corporation not wanting the station to use its brand name to sell any fuel that it does not make. You could make a bad analogy and compare it to the McDonalds corporation not allowing their franchise stores to sell locally made food under the same roof.
Update: Further proof it may be the US government's fault that oil is so expensive and not the oil companies. Oil hits record near $140 a barrel on dollar
Muslims barred from picture at Obama event
WTF?
It's funny in the same way that Christians spouting hatred for Muslims is funny. "Love thy neighbor," eh?
Obama takes aim at "Focus on the Family". More like Dobson, getting nervous that his base is starting to like Obama more then him.
They go on and on about how hard it will be to beat McCain in the fall and how important it is that you send them money to show the world that Obama can beat McCain. Meanwhile, doesn't Obama have a huge war chest compared to McCain?
One of the mailings brings up the 527 groups. It is the same mailing that says Obama broke his pledge about using the government funding (and its limits) because he's worried about the unlimited money funneled through 527 groups. McCain is not going to get the support of the 527 groups! The majority of those (on the right) are adversarial to McCain. Obama has a lot more friendly 527 groups on his side than McCain does.
What was with his patriotism speech and Wesley Clark? Didn't Clinton fire Clark? Why am I getting the feeling one of Obama's tactics is to send out a surrogate to do or say something about McCain just so Obama can give a speech about it a few days later to look like he is taking the high road?
On the other hand, Obama has now stepped over a line that I'd rather he not have crossed. I'm done compromising with idiots, and it saddens me that compromising with idiots is necessary to prevent other idiots from starting wars.
While I'll probably still vote for him, this alone has ensured that he will not receive another dime of my money, and has definitely put him a few steps closer to being just another politician.