Sen. Clinton stakes socialist claim to profits

[cannon_fodder]

As reported on CNN and every other news outlet, Hillary Clinton on Feb. 5th gave a speech assuring her supporters that if she was in charge she would  confiscate corporate profits from companies that performed too well and use them to further her own agenda.  
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/IBD-0001-14312283.htm
(I would welcome a transcript of the speech but most media outlets didnt seem to care about it)

Of course, for the time being she only wants to take property away from the oil industry and use it to subsidize its competition.  The result of which being painfully obvious: the 50,000,000 Americans that work in, are associated with, or own stock (or who's funds won stock) in oil companies would lose money.  Anyone who pays for oil products would pay more for them (plastics, heat, gas, any product requiring transportation).  And, there would be a more limited supply of oil (why go out and find new reserves if the government just takes them away anyway?).

An even more painful side effect would be the unjustified taking of property by the Federal government.  A corporation is granted the same rights to protection of property as an individual (since, obviously, people ultimately OWN the corporation).  Thus, a precedent allowing the government to take profits from any company it deems appropriate would open the door for the seizure of any personal assets it wants.   You must keep in mind, they arent really taking things from Exxon, they are taking it from the people who hold shares in Exxon (if you own a mutual fund, a pension fund, or a 401K this probably includes you).

This country used to bill itself as a land of opportunity; now, if you manage to succeed many people want to see the government take away what you have earned and give it to them.  

The huge profits Exxon is able to reap should serve as an incentive to both intraindustry competition and alternative energy producers to step up their production.  Unfortunately, the restrictive drilling laws of the United States have resulted in the vast majority of reserves being held in a small number of hands.  Likewise, federal subsidies of certain renewable energies (whichever one is hot this year... solar, wind, bio) have hindered the free markets ability to chose which is the best.

Thus, if we chose to drive SUV's and pickups, dont mind paying $2.50 for a gallon of gas, and Exxon is able to provide us with what we want at a price we are willing to pay... why take what we give them away?  They are not a monopoly nor a member of a cartel (they sell on the open market, unlike retailers who clearly set prices).  There is no evidence they are abusing market power.  This is simply a case of I want what they have and Im bigger, lets go take it.

[Conan71]

Ah, she just wants to confiscate money from traditional GOP contributors and give it to traditional DNC contributors.  It's so unfair for anyone to make a profit!

[Hometown]

Yea, remember all the money people made back during Clinton's presidency?  Even working people did better (for a change).  Thank God for the Clintons.  If it wasn't for them I wouldn't know what a good economy was.

Remember balanced budgets and rising wages?  Remember that stock market?  Socialism.  You're funny Cannon Fodder.

[iplaw]

Don't bother with Hometown Cannon...everything was better under the Clintons...the air was fresher, the birds sang louder....

He never bothers to realize that under Bush unemployment is lower than it was during Clinton.  The stock market is at all time highs, and the budget will be balanced in half the time originally thought.  Our tanking economy when Bush took office was a clear and direct effect of the 8 years of Clintonomics...

[cannon_fodder]

Did we confiscate the property from all the dot com's and give it to the struggling oil sector when "the Clinton's" were the White House?  Some dot com's made 20 year olds millionaires for doing nearly nothing - so lets take it from them!

Dont forget the oil sector was really struggling for a while (ahh, 88 cent gas).  Meanwhile the the tech companies made billions and billions.  There wasnt a call to redistribute that wealth nor to help the struggling oil companies.  Strange?

If you want to make this a Clinton debate, maybe you could help me with my sons president project.  My wife told him to write about Bill Clinton, we needed 5 facts... this is pretty well all I came up with:

1) President before and after George Bush
2) His wife wants to be president
3) He was impeached (some people didnt think he did a good job)
4) He is from Arkansas
5) The internet got really popular when he was president

That's about it.  He didnt really DO anything... which in my opinion is damn good for a president.

Anyway, I was trying to start a discussion about governmental taking of property for popular reasons.  Easy to see this discussion branch into corporate profits, CEO wages, taxes, or a maximum wage law.  I thought it was pertinent and interesting...  but I guess I was mistaken.    

(props to me, not one Clinton innuendo in this post)

[Conan71]

While Clinton was in office, the Dems did essentially fleece additional "taxes" out of big tobacco and Microsoft.

Why Cannon, doesn't it make perfect sense for the government to reward those with lack of ambition, motivation, or vision with the fruits of those who have all the above?  People should be punished for their success.[:O]

[tim huntzinger]

It is a great topic, just kind of overwhelming.  Why do you not ask a simpler question like 'what is the meaning of life?'

I do not buy the 'socialist' scare line that the author pinned on Clinton, in fact it would have been nice for Investor's Business Daily to actually quote her statement.

I want to know what any of our GOP delegation did while the Bush Admin persecuted Williams Cos. dang near into bankruptcy on a witch hunt following the Enron scandal.

[iplaw]

quote:
I do not buy the 'socialist' scare line that the author pinned on Clinton, in fact it would have been nice for Investor's Business Daily to actually quote her statement.

Redistribution of wealth is a purely socialistis dogma.  I don't know any other political ideology that stands behind it.  She is most definitely for income redistribution, therefore...

[Ibanez]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

It is a great topic, just kind of overwhelming.  Why do you not ask a simpler question like 'what is the meaning of life?'

I do not buy the 'socialist' scare line that the author pinned on Clinton, in fact it would have been nice for Investor's Business Daily to actually quote her statement.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it isn't an alligator.

[Hometown]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Don't bother with Hometown Cannon...everything was better under the Clintons...the air was fresher, the birds sang louder....

He never bothers to realize that under Bush unemployment is lower than it was during Clinton.  The stock market is at all time highs, and the budget will be balanced in half the time originally thought.  Our tanking economy when Bush took office was a clear and direct effect of the 8 years of Clintonomics...

IPPY!!!!!!!  You're back!  

Come over here and give this life long Democrat a big hug.  

By the way, IPPY you're going to have to sell your snake oil to the youngsters because the adults will remember life under the Clintons.

I'm sorry that your Bush has been such a failure.  It must be hard for you.

[AMP]

I made more money, had more fun, enjoyed life more and slept so much better when Clinton was President than any other time in my life.  

Cannnot wait to cast my ballot for another Clinton for President.  

[tim huntzinger]

So she is a bigtime tax and spender like most Republicans, what has she done to deserve being branded with the dreaded 'socialist' moniker?  Republicans advocate spending others' money by the truckload, they just subscribe to risky tax schemes to the point of Americans having a $7 TRILLION deficit.

Why did our GOP delegation allow the Bush Admin to ruin Williams Cos if they were so pro-business?

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by AMP

I made more money, had more fun, enjoyed life more and slept so much better when Clinton was President than any other time in my life.  

Cannnot wait to cast my ballot for another Clinton for President.  

That's sad...if you're a good business person you should be able to do that under any president, save Jimmy Carter.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Don't bother with Hometown Cannon...everything was better under the Clintons...the air was fresher, the birds sang louder....

He never bothers to realize that under Bush unemployment is lower than it was during Clinton.  The stock market is at all time highs, and the budget will be balanced in half the time originally thought.  Our tanking economy when Bush took office was a clear and direct effect of the 8 years of Clintonomics...

IPPY!!!!!!!  You're back!  

Come over here and give this life long Democrat a big hug.  

By the way, IPPY you're going to have to sell your snake oil to the youngsters because the adults will remember life under the Clintons.

I'm sorry that your Bush has been such a failure.  It must be hard for you.

Yeah, a rocket hot economy sure bites...

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

So she is a bigtime tax and spender like most Republicans, what has she done to deserve being branded with the dreaded 'socialist' moniker?  Republicans advocate spending others' money by the truckload, they just subscribe to risky tax schemes to the point of Americans having a $7 TRILLION deficit.

Those "risky" tax schemes have brought the DOW to record levels, home ownership to record levels, unemployment to all time lows and cut the deficit in half 5 years prematurely.  You lose...

The funniest part is your post is it's completely contradictory...Republicans are BIGTIME tax and spenders, yet you claim it's because of Bush's tax CUTS that we're in this mess...which is it?

quote:
Why did our GOP delegation allow the Bush Admin to ruin Williams Cos if they were so pro-business?

Got some proof to back this up?



Let me break it down very slowly, I'll even use a syllogism:

1.  All those who favor income redistribution are Socialists.
2.  Mangina favors income redistribution.
3.  Therefore Mangina is a Socialist.