Few people say this out loud, but there is a contingent in America that unabashedly wants communism or socialism or whatever "-ism" that will allow them to take from others in the name of the greater good. And, oh by the way, they're the ones who determine what the "greater good" is.
They've always been there, protesting against this or that, smashing chairs into McDonalds' and Starbucks and other evil engines of dreaded capitalism.
But this year there's no need for protest. This year, the protest goes mainstream and all civil-like. The fringe has become institutionalized, after all. This year, the "Robin Hood" party has a major presidential candidate.
Barack Obama.
We're not sure why he doesn't just drop all pretense and say he'll "nationalize" America's oil companies the way Hugo Chavez took the oil fields in Venezuela.
Obama, mind you, is now suggesting that the government here -- not just in leftist dictatorships in Latin America -- should take a "reasonable" amount of the oil companies' profits and give them to the American people.
What is the difference between that and what the Marxist tyrant Chavez has done -- except the degree of the taking?
Isn't taking still taking?
Where in the Constitution, or in the Magna Carta or the Declaration of Independence or in Christopher Columbus' Mapquest directions does it say the United States government can determine how much profit is fair and can just take the rest?
And, as the Wall Street Journal asked this week, "What is a 'windfall' profit anyway? How does it differ from your everyday, run of the mill profit? Is it some absolute number, a matter of return on equity or sales -- or does it merely depend on who earns it?"
"The oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy," Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Obama's friend in the oil-bashing business, has said.
"Really?" inquires the Journal . "This extraordinary redefinition of free-market success could use some parsing."
Investors Business Daily has done some parsing. In Barack Obama's world, "Economic justice," the newspaper says, "simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.
"In the past, such rhetoric was just that -- rhetoric. But Obama's positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state."
Is anyone wondering why American oil companies should be punished anyway? Wouldn't that just hurt American consumers and our global competitive position?
And what industry is next? If the government deems one industry's profits unreasonable, what's to stop it from stepping in and taking money from others? Where's the line? Or is there one? It's much more convenient when there is no line; that way, a government that has all the answers can move about freely, "leveling" the playing field as it sees fit wherever and whenever it wants.
We're not sure what Barack Obama calls that kind of government. But we're pretty sure its "-ism" isn't preceded by "capital."
Comments
Neither candidate has validity on how to handle the crisis of energy much less all the other important issues we face as a nation. One thing is for sure, our economy became unstable, and the idiots in the senate and white house still keep wanting money to go OUT of this country and help other countries and forsake their own. We can't afford to keep doing this cause now, we are going to be overtaken by those other countries cause we are BANKRUPT!
Mobil-Exxon 12 billion profit for a quarter.
justus, sometimes your posts are so silly they're funny. Like obamas speeches, your posts appeal to government school graduates. Uneducated people are easy to trick with unfounded "logic".
Obama's speeches are political fodder for the uneducated masses and have very little meaning. If you listen to his message during this part of the campaign, he comes down firmly on both sides of all subjects. Whatever the crowd wants to hear. I think his drift away from free enterprise will hurt him more then help him.
shivas, 12billion profit on an 11.4billion investment isn't a windfall.
The problem with Obama has always been, in my opinion, the fact that he is so under-qualified as to be extremely dangerous...His flip-flopping back and forth would cause an experienced sailor to become sea-sick...
While I agree with the ACES's position on free enterprise and capitalism stated here, I wonder how they justify their diatribe against Obama. This same editorial staff was venomous in its support of government telling private businesses that they could not allow smoking in their restaurants. Taking is taking, and the taking of freedoms from private business owners is no different than the direct taking of profits from the same. The ACES may accuse Obama of Socialism or Communism, but there is aword for what the ACES support - Fascism! I don't like that road any better than the former.........
Who is this guy? Are we finally seeing the true Obama? Will the majority of Americans really choose socia;ism? I just don't get it.
Where there's smoke there's fire. When so much controversy surrounds one candidate, it's time to look else where. Why would so many voters find this guy so attractive? Is it his lack of experience, his left leaning votes in congress, his turning away from those positions now that it benefits him to do so....I don't see it. I get that he is a great orator when his speech is written, but I also see that he stutters & stammers like an idiot when he has to field questions. There really isn't much here. Kinda like a lot of charisma in an otherwise empty suit.
The -ism in this instance is Obamaism. The socialist tells the voters he will redistribute the wealth. You couldn't make them happier.
If the government raises the taxes by taking more of the profits from the oil companies, who do ya'll really think will pay? You will every time you fill up because the price of gasoline and fuel will rise in response to each tax increase! In addition to that your food prices will rise as well as all expenses you have that can be connected to oil prices.. Let's see that would be your home or housing, utilities everything!
ruleoflaw, your comparison to the anti-smoking laws doesn't compute. Smokers "right" to make air unusable for the rest of the world was a freedom only for the elite. The mistake has been corrected. Smokers are still free to stink up their homes and cars and to expose their families. Now THAT'S freedom.
OK, let's make this simple: a year ago or so, oil company X had costs of $1 a gallon including the costs of the crude oil and all processing costs. X sold the gas it produced from oil wholesale for $1.10, a 10% profit. Today, X has costs of $2 a gallon, the increase ENTIRELY the result of the increase cost of crude oil. X again applies their 10% mark-up policy and sells its gas wholesale for $2.20. Gross profit a year ago: 10 cents a gallon; gross profit today: 20 cents a gallon. (This is why oil company profits have sky-rocketed.) Capitalist theory is that increased profits for a business are justified when the business has done something to EARN them, an improved product, higher efficiency, better marketing for example. In the case of gas, the oil companies have done NOTHING to earn their hugh new profits. That is the definition of "windfall profit" which the AC could not seem to find. A windfall profit is a profit resulting not from anything the business has done, but from external factors completely beyond the business's control. People who can't tell the difference between truly earned profits and windfall profits aren't trying very hard.
PT, your 7:11 post is right on. Why don't these people complain about Google, another massive corporation that turned a 35 percent increase in second-quarter profit. It reported net income of $1.25 billion, or $3.92 a share, up from $925.1 million, or $2.93 a share in the second quarter of 2007.
Exxon Mobile posted second-quarter earnings of $11.6 billion, or $2.22 per diluted share, on revenue of $138 billion. That compares to earnings of $10.2 billion, or $1.83 per diluted share, on revenue of $98 billion during the same quarter last year. the company's stock price dropped 2.7 percent to $82.09 per share, compared with $84.38 per share at close the day before. As you can see the volume for Exxon-Mobil is much higher, but Google has far less expenditure to gain capital than Exxon does. As much volume in profit Exxon rakes in, most of it goes right back to liabilities.
eel..and who decides which companies makes this "windfall profit". Some of the "mom and pop" stores make a huge profit on their overpriced goods. Loan institutions make a killing off the ignorant. We need to be sure and include ALL of businesses in this windfall tax program. Then funnel all the monies to the poor after the politicians have skimmed the cream off the top.
PT, my logic is just fine. Please explain to me the difference between exposing a nonsmoker in a private home is any different to exposing a nonsmoker in a private business??
The Wall Street Journal has a similar article on Windfall Profit. They too find the term hard to define and arbitrary. They compare special profit taxing of a privately owned companies as something that should not happen in the free world. They compared it to what is done in Venezuela. Perhaps they should hire the EEL.
obama's new one world flag is already on store shelves. thirteen stripes, blue field, one star.
EEL, oh to have the same principles apply to Gov't: An increase in taxes is justified only when the Gov'ts has done something to EARN them, an improved product, higher efficiency, better marketing for example. In fact EEL, the only determining factor in any free market is supply and demand. If you make your product 100 times better, and there is no demand, you cannot demand an increase in price. If you do, no one will buy. If no one wanted oil, you couldn't sell it, regardless of price....it is simple economics. An they don't teach it very well in school any more.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. And they all claim it was not their fault that things have gone awry over everything they control. Scary.
ruleoflaw: I learned economics pretty well. Supply and demand ARE at work in the price of gas, it's true. The price of gas has come down as Americans drive less, but only marginally. The most significant factor in gas prices BY FAR is the cost of crude which is IS NOT SET BT SUPPLY AND DEMAND. That cost is set essentially by OPEC. So you are right, but only in regard to a factor in the price of gas which is almost insignificant in the greater scheme of things. How do you like them economics???
ruleoflaw, much more is acceptable in a mans castle. If a nonsmoker doesn't wish to visit in a smoke filled house, that's his choice., but if a nonsmoker is having a meal and a smoker sits down at the next table, the nonsmoker has to endure the addiction, through no choice or has to pay for a meal they can't eat while being chased out of an open business. Where's the comparison? Your thinking resembles that of a smoker.
If Obama is "suggesting that the government ... should take a "reasonable" amount of the oil companies' profits and give them to the American people. (I don't know that he has cause I don't listen to his drivel). But if he said it, it is only "rethoric". Also a fancy word for political B.S., political lies, political wishful thinking ... etc. There is no way in hell Obama or any other elected official will highjack big oils' money cow. If he is perceived by "the powers that be," to be attempting to "nationalize" America's oil companies. His hair will be parted 1"-2" below the scalp.
EEL, OPEC sets the price of oil in response to demand. I'll explain it to you this way - If no one needed oil, what price would OPEC command? The answer is $0! The price of oil and gas have come down marginally because the demand for gas has come down marginally or the supply has gone up marginally. Also, the high cost of gas and oil have made it profitable to look for more sources of oil and alternative energies, which will either reduce dependence on oil or increase the supply of it. That is the way the market is supposed to work.
So EEL, if the U.S. suddenly happened upon billions of gallons of crude oil, in oh, I don't know, ANWAR, you don't think OPEC would reduce the price of their crude??? Supply/Demand.
Opec does not set the price for oil. They control supply. Oil is traded on a futures market based on supply and demand.
BTW, most of our Oil in this country comes from Canada.
PT, if a nonsmoker doesn't wish to visit in a smoke filled restaurant, that's his choice. But if a nonsmoker is eating at a friend's house and a smoker sits down at the table, the nonsmoker has to endure the addiction, through no choice or has to leave a meal they can't eat while being chased out of an open home. That is the same logic PT. Both are private places. No one is forced to go there, Both are free to set their own rules towards smokers. No difference. Please try again. And, by the way, I never have smoked and can't stand it. But then again I choose to not go to places where people smoke.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
