Obama On Big Oil Lining McCain’s Pockets
Tweet
That’s what a quarter century in Washington will get you.
29 Responses to “Obama On Big Oil Lining McCain’s Pockets”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
How is this NOT pandering?
Who said it wasn’t? What’s your point?
At least McCain isn’t famous. Nobody likes him.
Shame on McCain for pandering to the big donation Oil Companies. Spot on Farris.
The Messiah told me pandering on gas prices is bad.
Anyway, a quick quiz for Obama.
Should his windfall profits tax pass, Oil Companies will:
A) Pass the price on to the consumer.
B) Lay off blue collar workers.
C) Spend less on Research & Development.
D) File for bankruptcy stiffing employees, pension recipients, and stock holders.
E) Say “Awww damn. He got us” and start selling gas for less than cost, CEOs give away all their earthly posessions to handicapped orphans, and rainbows and flying unicorns fill the sky.
If you think the answer is some combination of A thru D, congratulations: you have enough knowledge to pass a 10th Grade Free Enterprise class.
If you think the answer is E, congratulations: you’re an Obama voter!
Obama takes money from “Big Oil” as well.
Is Obama’s point that McCain has received more and Obama is less oily?
Hahahaha Farris.
You seem to think that cutting into excess profits would somehow destroy the operating budgets of these companies. While price for their product has gone up a ton, the production costs have risen gradually. It costs about $7.00/barrel lifting in the US. And it sells for what?
Instead of giving the money as rebates, a better investment would be underwriting various alternative energy projects.
Yikes. Worship Marx much?
Yikes! Worship oil companies much?
We get it: profit BAD!!!! But good luck telling that to a majority of Americans who have stocks/mutual funds with Oil as part of the portfolio.
PS: Get well soon to America’s first Black President.
<i.”But good luck telling that to a majority of Americans who have stocks/mutual funds with Oil as part of the portfolio”
Where in the Constitution does it say “We the Shareholder”?
We get it: profit BAD!!!!
Nobody said this.
You seem to think that cutting into excess profits
Now Lord knows I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even I can tell here that what Midder meant by ‘excess’ was ‘excessive,’ as in the fleecing of customers through exorbitant prices on a good with inelastic demand. The following two sentences provide the necessary context. We can debate whether or not that is actually happening, but what’s clear is that he wasn’t making a socialist declaration.
Where in the Constitution does it say “We the Shareholder”?
The Constitution doesn’t say lots of things. Britain has no Constitution (but they do have a small-c constitution) and they manage. In fact arguing that one must own a certain amount of property to have a say is more in line with the wishes of the founding fathers. But that don’t make it good.
Slightly more on topic though, your outline of the consequence of windfall profits taxes rings true to me, Farris. We have to keep in mind that these companies exist to maximize returns for their shareholders (not to provide a charity), and that a rational company will exercise all its legal rights to do so.
And yet, at the end of the day we still need a new energy source, especially if we cut the climate change-denying bulls**t, but even if we leave that aside we still need it. I wonder whether a mandated flat percentage of profits spent on alternative energy would do the trick. That way seems to cut the incentive to pass the cost on, because if you pass the cost on and drive your profits higher, you have to devote more dollars to alternative energy R&D anyway.
You don’t seem to get it. Our oil based economy is in it’s decline. It is unsustainable. These companies are sucking the economy dry, sucking away the resources we need to move toward sustainable energy sources.
So fuck ‘em. Tax em. Cut their subsidies. Cut their tax breaks. Let them fnd their ownexploration. Enforce royalty collection. Enforce environmental regulations. Make them fund cleanup again. Stop screwing around in foreign countries to secure more oil.
Parthenon, why should we tax these companies simply because they’re making higher profits?
It’s funny but I don’t see calls for similar taxes on Microsoft, Bank of America, AIG, GE, Toyota, Pfizer, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup or HSBC.
Why is that?
Jay, you seem to be confusing companies with products. Gasoline is a product. Bank of America is a company. The appropriate analogy would be “taxing banks”, not “taxing Bank of America”.
That is, if you like arguing by analogy. I’ve always thought that particular debate style is for people who can’t win an argument by using facts that are actually relevant to it.
…Anyhow. Back to the original post: Obama going after McCain on the oil issue has a little less bite what with caving on offshore drilling. I’m not against compromise, but I AM against saying “What the hell, the Republicans are right on this issue.” Ask Gore and Kerry if that’s a good way to win an election.
I’ve always thought that particular debate style is for people who can’t win an argument by using facts that are actually relevant to it.
Well, you can get into semantics if you wish, but the issue isn’t products vs. companies, but profits. Nobody cared what kind of profits oil companies were making when gas was $1.25 a gallon or even $2.00 a gallon. It only became “excessive” when the same oil companies were making profits when gas started inching towards $4.00 per gallon.
In addition, I have yet to see one person show in any way how a “windfall profits tax” would do anything to alleviate higher gas prices.
“Pandering” Farris??? Tell you what, if this is Obama pandering, then wtf do you call this:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/oil_company_executives.php
“Just days after John McCain reversed himself on offshore drilling, ten senior Hess Corporation executives and Hess family members each plowed $28,500 into the RNC’s committee to elect McCain president…
A Hess “office manager” and her husband, an Amtrak worker, both chipped in $28,500 apiece on the same day that all those Hess execs did.
Late Update: Turns out the two rent their home in middle class Flushing, Queens.”
Just a coincidence, eh? No “quid pro quo” there at all, eh?
ROFLMAO
It’s all fine and well if that profit hadn’t been bought with the blood and treasure of US foreign policy. Also, with about half the cost of the product being driven by speculation and manipulation of the markets.
And yet, at the end of the day we still need a new energy source, … I wonder whether a mandated flat percentage of profits spent on alternative energy would do the trick.
I’m not exactly sure how you would enforce it. And Lord knows that even if that were to pass, I’m sure any Oil company worth their salt would hire a phalanx of accountants to hide revenues.
As for a new energy source, I’m a big believer in the free market. Up until now, it didn’t make any economic sense to pursue alternate sources because (relatively speaking) oil was cheap and plentiful. As prices have risen and demand has has shrunk supply, other sources become more economicaly viable, and more attractive to the entrepeneur.
I’m sure there are countless young Bill Gateses, Henry Fords, Thomis Edisons, and Alexander Graham Bells toiling away to discover the next energy source that is cheap, reliable, prevelant, and clean. On the surface, that may seem Pollyanny-ish. But as shown, our country’s history is replete with examples of what freedom, opportunity, and time can ultimatly create.
And when they do make millions on this new energy source, we’ll tax their a** to hell and back, just like we always do!
The oil industry is simply not interested in finding alternative sources because their horizons tend to go no further than next quarter, and profits are fat right now. Otherwise, I doubt entrepreneurs can get VCs to cough up the kind of cash needed to find a fuel alternative. We will have to solve this problem like we’ve sold others: Massive government investment that lays the groundwork for commercial use down the road.
For now, conservatives seem locked in to their argument that we should get on our knees and thank the oil industry for what they’ve done for us, but that’s a minority of a minority position… and one I hope John McCain keeps up. But then, I don’t have the best interests of John McCain in mind.
Why do you believe oil companies fall under anything resembling the free market.
And Farris hits the “Rich people shouldn’t pay taxes because hiding it is inconvenient to them” mega-talking point!!!!!! Congratulations!!!
Yikes. Worship Marx much?
Why the hell do the ultra-cons have such an issue with Groucho Marx?
“Well, you can get into semantics if you wish, but the issue isn’t products vs. companies”
Huh. That’s weird. Wonder why I brought it up, then?
“Nobody cared what kind of profits oil companies were making when gas was $1.25 a gallon or even $2.00 a gallon. It only became “excessive” when the same oil companies were making profits when gas started inching towards $4.00 per gallon.”
Huh, you’re right, that is SO WEIRD how people don’t complain about price-gouging when products are reasonably priced!
You like arguing by analogy? Here’s one for you: it’s 93 degrees out right NOW, but you seem to think that if 8 years from now I’m in Siberia complaining about the cold, that makes me a hypocrite.
“In addition, I have yet to see one person show in any way how a “windfall profits tax” would do anything to alleviate higher gas prices.”
Yeah, me neither. In fact, I have yet to see one person say that at all. You tell that straw man!
Why should we tax these companies simply because they’re making higher profits?
It’s funny but I don’t see calls for similar taxes on Microsoft, Bank of America, AIG, GE, Toyota, Pfizer, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup or HSBC.
Well I’m sure Pfizer is actively working against Obama’s campaign for similar reasons, but I take your larger point Jay. Nike makes at least tens of dollars per unit sold, probably in the high tens; Toyota makes at least hundreds if not thousands; Banks make gazillions by simply pushing money around into different hands (but performing the important – since the Italian Renaissance, utterly necessary – task of providing capital). Oil companies make pennies. It is counter-intuitive to disproportionately ‘punish’ a company with almost as thin a profit margin as it is possible to have.
However oil is essentially a unique product (at the moment, at least) that seems to me to demand special circumstances. I’d guess there is no other like it in the marketplace – a necessity of generally inelastic demand for which there is no replacement. There is inelastic demand for bread, but if wheat prices went through the roof, people could trade it for another grain source. This is generally not so of oil. The oil company’s enormous success is not due to some special business savvy, or marketing, or superior product. As far as our economy is concerned, they are oxygen merchants. They are water peddlers. They are giving us something we – currently – have to have lots and lots of.
Sometime soon, however, this is going to have to change, really the sooner the better. I don’t blame them for high oil prices, and it goes against (not modern political, but classical) liberal principle to punish their shareholders for investing in a good company and force them to do what we say with their well-earned money, but the simple fact remains that no company is better placed to research new fuels. Like most recent innovations (space program, internet age, etc.) this one will probably be a private/public enterprise. OW may be correct that they’re currently lacking in longterm planning, but in fact it seems in their interest to be the one to find the replacement fuel first, and have a head start on transitioning from oil derricks to whatever-it-is. And we ought to remember that the amount they are forced to devote to research is not going to tax them out of business, although I would be interested to know how many corners they’ll cut should Obama’s plan be enacted.
There is also the matter of hidden cost; I’m less uncomfortable telling them they must spend X% of their income on clean fuels when they have never (and will never) pay their total cost of doing business, the way, for instance, tobacco companies have recently been forced in the courts.
And if you don’t want to read all that, shorter me: Oil is a unique product, and we’ll need one to replace it soon. Within reason, principle (don’t punish people for doing business) has to be subservient to problem-solving.
As for a new energy source, I’m a big believer in the free market.
So am I, to a point. It’s worth noting though that every piece of economic reform legislation – of which I’m aware, anyway – was attacked by those whose wallets it dented as being anti-free market.
“The oil industry is simply not interested in finding alternative sources because their horizons tend to go no further than next quarter, and profits are fat right now.”
So you’re saying they don’t realize oil is a finite resource, suggesting that when the time comes, they won’t try to do R & D on alternative fuel sources?
That’s ridiculous, even for you.
uk.youtube.com/watch?v=akjXqfvLu28
Obama on the attack. Even says the Republicans are lying. Nicely done.
“So you’re saying they don’t realize oil is a finite resource, suggesting that when the time comes, they won’t try to do R & D on alternative fuel sources?
That’s ridiculous, even for you.”
It is not ridiculous, it is based on the evidence.
Oil companies are run by people who won’t have their current jobs by the time there’s not enough oil for the oil companies to survive. Why the fuck would they lower profits now in order to help the company after they are gone?