The Audacity of Socialism.

[Cry Havoc]

Companies are suppose to make a profit. That is how they stay in business and hire people. Government is en led to it? I don't think so.

So if the farmers of the country got together and decided to make all fresh vegetables and fruits $1000 a pound, you'd be fine with it?

Besides who determines what is "windfall" profits. At what point does profits become "windfall"? Or better still what is "windfall"? Isn't it something gained for no effort, like found. How is a company, any company, who invest/take a chance, and is in business to make money guilty of "windfall" profits.

See above. Exxon just posted record profit margins. If they wanted to jack oil prices to $8/gallon, what, exactly, would you do about it? You the individual might be okay with taking public transit. That simply isn't true for many people. I hail originally from a town of 600 people in a very rural, agrarian community. Public transit does not exist, and making a quick trip to get groceries involves 80+ miles of driving.

If CPS energy decided to raise the electricity in SA by 2,000 times it's current cost, would you still wave the flag of "oh they're just making a profit?"

That's fallacy. They're making a profit on a product that is completely necessary to the consumer. Exxon made record profits last year and you think they're en led to it all? They could quintuple gas prices. What are you going to do about it? Nothing. You're just going to sit there and take it and praise business for how shrewd they are.

[ElNono]

Chevron reports record profit of $6 billion
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,1215222.story

Exxon posts record $11.68 billion profit
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/31/news...ion=2008073110

[Oh, Gee!!]

I speak today as both a citizen of the United States and of the world. I come with the heartfelt wishes of my people for peace, bearing honest proposals and looking for genuine progress.

Pussy. He never overthrew a government.

[2centsworth]

Curiously, the windfall profits tax on revenues derived by oil producers was in effect for almost all of the Reagan Administration -- the noted socialist Ronald Reagan, that is.

very misleading thank you. I see you're changing your position. Obama wasn't going to propose this according to you and now he has but ok because Reagan what?

Carter signed the law with the help of a liberal congress in 1980! Just before Reagan. Reagan can't unilaterally change a law, but was strong enough to persuade the liberal congress to draft a bill to eliminate the tax and of course Reagan signed that. At least I thought you could be honest.

[FromWayDowntown]

very misleading thank you. I see you're changing your position. Obama wasn't going to propose this according to you and now he has but ok because Reagan what?

Carter signed the law with the help of a liberal congress in 1980! Just before Reagan. Reagan can't unilaterally change a law, but was strong enough to persuade the liberal congress to draft a bill to eliminate the tax and of course Reagan signed that. At least I thought you could be honest.

There you go again with those assumptions. All I noted was that for most of the Reagan presidency, a windfall profits tax was imposed upon oil producers. There's nothing misleading about that -- it's a fact.

Your subsequent paragraph simply proves the point that I've made throughout this thread -- it doesn't really matter what the President's economic policies are or how they can be characterized; what matters is whether Congress will enact laws giving effect to those policies.

Moreover, I never said Obama was or wasn't going to propose it and I never said it would be good or bad because of any relationship to Ronald Reagan. What I said was that the windfall profits tax was in existence during a large portion of Reagan's administration. I implied that if overseeing the imposition of such a tax amounted to socialism, then there would be an interesting discussion concerning the "socialist" policies in existence during the Reagan Administration. This goes to my other overarching point, which is that characterizing someone as "socialist" because of the effect of isolated policies is erroneous -- that there may be socialistic underpinnings to policies advanced by a particular candidate does not make that candidate a socialist.

It would be nice if you would quit presuming that you know me or what I believe -- or if you would at least quit assuming that any of my beliefs can be nicely characterized into some sort of philosophical or ideological box that fits the archetypes you assign to such things.

[2centsworth]

There you go again with those assumptions. All I noted was that for most of the Reagan presidency, a windfall profits tax was imposed upon oil producers. There's nothing misleading about that -- it's a fact.

you're comparing Reagan to Obama. Obama has proposed the tax and Reagan was against it.

Your subsequent paragraph simply proves the point that I've made throughout this thread -- it doesn't really matter what the President's economic policies are or how they can be characterized; what matters is whether Congress will enact laws giving effect to those policies.

liberal president + liberal congress equal marxist policies like the windfall tax. Your example proves that point.


the rest of your post is a waste because some how you're trying to give obama some credibility by bring up Reagan. Your argument wouldn't stick counselor, but good attempt to confuse and deflect.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Your subsequent paragraph simply proves the point that I've made throughout this thread -- it doesn't really matter what the President's economic policies are or how they can be characterized; what matters is whether Congress will enact laws giving effect to those policies.

Of course, you're also ignorning the fact Reagan had a liberal Congress to work with that was basically his opposite politically.

Obama, should he win, is going to have a bunch of liberal nut jobs like Pelosi lining up to do his bidding.

Come on FWD, you're smarter than this.

[FromWayDowntown]

liberal president + liberal congress equal marxist policies like the windfall tax. Your example proves that point.

No, my example proves that Congress, not the President, sets economic policy. That's true because despite Reagan's opposition of the windfall profits tax, that law remained in effect for a large portion of his presidency. As such, the President can yammer as long as he or she wants about particular economic initiatives, but that yammering makes no difference because Congress retains the final say.

The notion that a Democratic Congress will necessarily enact economic legislation that turns America into a purely socialist state is a huge presumption on your part and it's one that defies any notion of political pragmatism in a world in which the balance of power in Congress is so tenuous. From a purely political perspective, Democratic legislators who hold slim majorities with their cons uencies are going to be understandably reluctant to go along with enacting statutes that might net them a socialist label -- it would be political suicide (although this thread reminds me that in public discourse, self-identification as a Democrat is considered to be the functional equivalent of raising a banner that says "I am a socialist -- , I'm probably even a communist!" or something of the like).

And speaking of political and philosophical misnomers, it's interesting that windfall profits taxes have gone from being socialist to being marxist -- as if those terms would describe the same policy!

the rest of your post is a waste because some how you're trying to give obama some credibility by bring up Reagan. Your argument wouldn't stick counselor, but good attempt to confuse and deflect.

I'm doing no such thing. If I had any interest in specifically advocating for Obama, my tack in this thread would be very different than it has been.

By the way, you seem to have some strange fascination with my profession.

[smeagol]

2cents, you better be prepared when debating FWD

[2centsworth]

2cents, you better be prepared when debating FWD

what that Reagen and Obama are different? I give credit to the counselor in trying to make that argument seem plausible to deflect attention away from Obama's socialist tendencies.

[2centsworth]

No, my example proves that Congress, not the President, sets economic policy. That's true because despite Reagan's opposition of the windfall profits tax, that law remained in effect for a large portion of his presidency. As such, the President can yammer as long as he or she wants about particular economic initiatives, but that yammering makes no difference because Congress retains the final say.

why do you continue to ignore the fact we have a democrat congress?

The notion that a Democratic Congress will necessarily enact economic legislation that turns America into a purely socialist state is a huge presumption on your part and it's one that defies any notion of political pragmatism in a world in which the balance of power in Congress is so tenuous.

The argument is that Obama is a socialist. You want that as the leader of your country, sobeit.

From a purely political perspective, Democratic legislators who hold slim majorities with their cons uencies are going to be understandably reluctant to go along with enacting statutes that might net them a socialist label -- it would be political suicide (although this thread reminds me that in public discourse, self-identification as a Democrat is considered to be the functional equivalent of raising a banner that says "I am a socialist -- , I'm probably even a communist!" or something of the like).

I wouldn't argue that.

I'm doing no such thing. If I had any interest in specifically advocating for Obama, my tack in this thread would be very different than it has been.

By the way, you seem to have some strange fascination with my profession.

I'm very complimentary of you and would hire you asap. You just try to win arguments instead of just admitting obama has socialist tendencies.

[Cry Havoc]

You just try to win arguments instead of just admitting obama has socialist tendencies.

Tendencies? So he's gone from being a communist to having "socialist tendencies".

Hate to break it to you, bud, but a lot of our presidents have had "socialist tendencies".

[2centsworth]

Tendencies? So he's gone from being a communist to having "socialist tendencies".

Hate to break it to you, bud, but a lot of our presidents have had "socialist tendencies".

to me he's a marxist like his best friend and mentor. The tendencies was a concession for fwd.

[Cry Havoc]

to me he's a marxist like his best friend and mentor.

obama has socialist tendencies.

At least you have your story straight.

[2centsworth]

At least you have your story straight.

I like how you misquoted me. I said at least(at a minimum) admit (you admit) obama has socialist tendencies.

Learn to read.

[xrayzebra]

So if the farmers of the country got together and decided to make all fresh vegetables and fruits $1000 a pound, you'd be fine with it?

Want to talk corn? Funny no one wants to jump on farmers for their windfall profits.

See above. Exxon just posted record profit margins. If they wanted to jack oil prices to $8/gallon, what, exactly, would you do about it? You the individual might be okay with taking public transit. That simply isn't true for many people. I hail originally from a town of 600 people in a very rural, agrarian community. Public transit does not exist, and making a quick trip to get groceries involves 80+ miles of driving.

Not much you or I could do about it. Except, not buy it or buy as little as possible. Me thinks they would soon bring the price down when they had keep most of what they refined. Don't you?

If CPS energy decided to raise the electricity in SA by 2,000 times it's current cost, would you still wave the flag of "oh they're just making a profit?"

Well CPS did just raise their rates. The city council approved that raise. Guess what though, the city also profits, at no expense, by taking their cut. And the city also profits from those OUTSIDE the city who get their power from CPS. What is it 14 percent. Nice, huh?

That's fallacy. They're making a profit on a product that is completely necessary to the consumer. Exxon made record profits last year and you think they're en led to it all? They could quintuple gas prices. What are you going to do about it? Nothing. You're just going to sit there and take it and praise business for how shrewd they are.

You cited food in the first quote. It is necessary to the consumer. Especially corn. You aren't upset about the "windfall" profit the farmers are making. And once again, I will remind you, we can and did do something about the high price of gasoline, we cut down on using it, it became a problem for the producers, not just Exxon, but all producers, and the President did one thing too, he rescinded his Presidential order on drilling off shore, between the two prices dropped. Get Congress off their butt and change a few laws and you will see a much larger drop. More oil will become available. It is called supply and demand. An old concept, been around since Christ.