"I did never know so full a voice issue from so empty a heart: but the saying is true 'The empty vessel makes the greatest sound'." ~ William Shakespeare
I was going to post a comment on Eric's blogpost about Hillary's speech in which she talks about taking oil company profits, but for some reason, blogger would not allow me to post a comment, so I'm commenting here. For background, Here is what Hillary said:
"The Democrats know what needs to be done. Again, we're working to try to push this agenda forward. The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to find alternative smart energy, alternatives and technologies that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence!"
Now, I'm not certain she really meant that she intends to just take the oil company's profits, or if she means she merely wants to tax them, (as if they aren't already being taxed) but, what happens when a company of any type somehow loses all their profits?
That's right. They go out of business.
If, as President, she did take oil company profits, the oil companies would go broke and have to close, throwing hundreds of thousands of people out of work. Not just the oil company employees, but all the companies that deal in petroleum by products and accessories to oil products.
In effect, America would go out of business. Our whole country! In addition, all the countries that depend on America for economic aid would go bankrupt, also.
Now, we're talking about creating millions more poor people world wide than we already have.
That's just the start. Think of alternative fuels. The current leader in the alternative fuels field is ethanol, which is made from corn and other grains. Of course, it is far from being ready to step in and take over at providing fuel for most of the world, but that's only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Not only is ethanol not ready to be our primary source of fuel, it will drive the costs of corn and grain so high that only the rich will be able to afford any product made with corn and other grains.
I've also heard it said that it costs more to make ethanol than it does to refine oil for gasoline. Once again, more higher costs to "save" the planet from evil oil.
So let's break it down and make it simple enough for even Liberals to understand.
Hillary wants to be President. As President, Hillary wants to put oil companies and all other companies that use or manufacture anything remotely related to oil production completely out of business, thereby creating massive unemployment worse than anything we've ever had previously, including during the Great Depression.
In addition to massive unemployment, she wants to create inflation higher than anyone has ever imagined, so high in fact, that even her multi-millionaire friends like George Soros etc, will not even be able to afford bread.
So, in her efforts to steal "Big Oil" profits for the common good of common man, she will completely destroy America's economy.
And the common man will cease to be. But I guess that's what the Liberals say they want.
I guess in the end, the very very wealthy will be the only ones left.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
51 comments:
Mexico is already up in arms about the high price of tortillas. Reason? The high demand for ethanol.
I did a post at Club 100's forum 18 months or so ago about how the oil companies themselves should be investing all those profits...or at least a significant portion of them in new technologies.
I guess Hillary's decided the gov'ment will insure that they do so.
(sigh!)
Hillary's agenda can be summed up in one word: socialism.
The good news is that she can't win this election against any of the GOP's Big Three, even with a re-run of the Clinton 1992 Ross Perot strategy.
Let's pray Jason is right...
She was wrong in her statement, by the way.
The Oil Companies did not report the highest profits in the history of the World.
They made about 10% profit.
SHE, on the other hand, made $100,000 on a $1000 investment on cattle futures in ten months in 1978.
The oil companies have a long way to go if they want to catch up to her in the "highest profits in the history of the world" department.
Lot's of unfounded assumptions and strawmen in this post.
1. Did anyone say ALL oil company profits? The rest of your doomsday economic predictions are founded on an unknown assumption.
2. One industry cannot be collapsed by the united states government except with support from 75-90 percent of the populous. And while a huge majority of the American public sees that dangers of using fossil fuels. Only fanatics and hysterics are suggesting dissolving the industry tomorrow.
3. The world doesn't depend on America for oil products exclusively. Even if by some public insanity we outlawed fossil fuels tomorrow. Saudi Arabia would still sell oil. Russia would still have some of the world's largest refineries. China's economy would continue to grow.
4. Why would anyone want to be president solely to ruin the country and be reviled through history? That's the sort of conspiracy you're suggesting.
Next time think of better strawmen.
Back when Bill was in charge in the '90's when oil was $20 per barrel oil companies were merging left and right just to survive. After Mark Rich was tied to the oil for food scandal I have to wonder how much bootleg oil we had flood the market, but I digress.
The oilfied here in ND just about shrivelled up and died. It almost destroyed the state as it was. The reason for the oil prices are market driven. And when you don't have as many producers because they had to get out of the business, by the sheer rules of economics prices are going to be higher as well as the rewards.
If we really want to do something about our dependence on foreign oil drill off-shore and in ANWAR. Build wind generators where the liberals keep fighting putting them, especially those with "enviromental concerns. But let's not handicap ourselves because some Eastern marxist wants us to
OK Bent, Here are your answers:
1.Yes some one did say she'd take ALL of the profits. Hillary did. Read her speech again. She might not have meant it, but she did say it.
Here, for the benefit of those who may not have read her words, is what she said, exactly:
"I want to take those profits..."
2. You may not know this so I'll enlighten you. There are thousands of products, including anything made with plastic, that uses oil and oil by-products. Therefore, if the oil companies have to go out of business, which they would if all their profits were taken away, all those other industries would go out of business also, and so, America would be destroyed.
3. If America's economy is completely destroyed, where would America get the funds to buy foreign oil?
4. Reviled through history? Yes, reviled by Americans, but not by the socialist countries, and those are the only countries she is interested in impressing.
But you are right Mr. Bent. All those assumptions are predicated on a big "IF". But she said it, I didn't. I just projected what would happen if she got her way.
If, in fact, she meant what she said.
Ben did a pretty good job of clearing up many misstatements that were made, but allow me to add one.
And this is a big one:
"Hillary's agenda can be summed up in one word: socialism."
Words have meanings. People keep repeating stuff like this to demonize others (Hillary being the target this time), even though it's not true.
Socialism means the state would assume ownership of the oil companies. Capitalists don't believe in that, but they do believe in taxation.
Mark, Jason, Eric, Dan, Ben, Daddio...and Hillary: ALL of us all believe in taxation - we may disagree on the amount or the reasons, but we are all one big happy capitalist family.
Words have meanings.
Using them deceptively to try to demonize your opponent is not how we ought to do things as rational adults in a democracy. That sort of behavior is better suited to dictators and other repressive types.
"The good news is that she can't win this election against any of the GOP's Big Three, even with a re-run of the Clinton 1992 Ross Perot strategy."
I have a sneaking feeling that the Huckster could emerge as a frontrunner in a few months.
How 'bout a race between the former first lady of Arkansas and the former two-term (plus) guv from that wonderful, marvelous, hillbilly state?
I agree with you, Mark, and disagree with Trabue completely. I know socialism when I see it. Hillary fits the bill. She tried to socialize medicine. She is, in every sense of the word, a socialist.
Yes, words have meaning. Seems to me the liberals like Trabue ought to practice what they preach. Many of them compare Bush to Hitler! The socialist agenda is alive and well in this country and is not limited to Hillary. Many of the public schools have gone socialist. California is overrun with socialists, especially San Francisco, and Pelosi is definitely a socialist. To deny this is to ignore reality. We see socialism running rampant in this country daily and something needs to be done to turn it around.
Good post, Mark. Hillary would be a complete disaster for this country!
Dan, she's talking about what she wants to do if elected President. She said, "I want to take those profits..."
She didn't say she wants to tax those profits. she didn't say she wants to take some or most of the profits. She said she wants to take those profits.
If she is President, and she takes those profits, she is establishing ownership by the government of those corporations. Hence, under your own definition, she is a socialist.
""Hillary's agenda can be summed up in one word: socialism."
I thought that might get the attention of your resident socialist appeasing pacifist.
And Mark, when you start using a lefty dictionary to define your writing it will stop being interesting.
So tell those socialists to stop their whining.
Remember, most of them are still struggling with the meaning of the word "id."
In June 2004, Hillary said, “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
In 1875, Karl Marx coined the phrase, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
See any similarities? If so; then Hillary is spouting socialistic tendencies.
Is Japan a socialist nation? Canada? What about Switzerland? America is the only industrialized country that doesn't have universal health care. All the other 1st world countries see public health as part of national security.
And since we have the benefit of looking at the Kyoto Treaty (which at least was an attempt to move the world to an economy based more strongly upon Earth stewardship) we can see that EVERY other country supports a cleaner environment. Except the United States under George Bush and the Republican Congress.
Capitalism is a great structure for generating innovation and productivity and wealth. It is not great for the environment, safety or compassion. Capitalism demands that products be produced faster and cheaper. Quality and safety are only a tertiary concerns. Capitalism must be reigned in through government taxation and regulation to bring those ideas of quality and safety to the forefront.
When politicians talks about altering taxation or regulation policy they are talking about how we slowly want to change our society. They are talking about what we think is more important.
The FDA is expensive and it raises the cost of drugs and meat and slows new medicines from reaching the market, but who wants to bet that Merck would still have Vioxx on the market. Do you think meat packing plants would be as clean and safe as they are? Are willing to give up NHTSA oversight of car manufacturing? Lets see an SUV do a rollover with thin roof metal.
With the growing tide of environmentalism it is time to talk of how to restructure those taxes and regulations on the fossil fuel industry to encourage earth stewardship. What's more important to you the air you breathe or that $2.00 gasoline?
Great Post Mark,
Looking at it this way, Hillary is looking more and more scary every day!
Old Soldier said:
"In 1875, Karl Marx coined the phrase, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”"
And in 33 AD, Jesus said, "To whom much has been given, much will be expected."
What's your point? That Hillary, Marx and Jesus were all socialists?
Dan, Hillary said she would "take". Marx said "From each.... to each..", indicating involuntary contributions, much like taxation, Jesus said "much is expected", Indication that he meant God expects, as a method of making a sacrifice to God, a voluntary offering.
Yes Hillary and Marx are socialists, because they want to take funds without giving a choice. Jesus is asking for obedience but leaving the choice up to the giver.
Though gov regs can be brought about through true need, all in all, I believe demand can have as much an effect, and actually a more efficient effect, on how corporations do business. If the people demand that things are done in a way that results in better earth stewardship, however it is defined at the time, entrepreneurial types will begin doing business to capture the market of those who are making the demand. I think we see this now. Companies often tout the environmental benefits of their products or services, and those who care patronize those businesses. Look at the packaging, for example, and you're likely to see indications of the recycle-ability of the packaging. That came about from demand, or at least the perception of the manufacturer that it would have appeal, which is the perception of demand. So the profit desires of the corporations were affected by demand and changes were made in packaging without government forcing the issue. This is actually my own perception of how such things came to be, but there is definitely a desire or demand for environmentally conscious manufacturers by the consumers. One company gives the consumers what they demand, and the others make changes to remain competitive.
At the same time, for those companies who engage in practices that are proven to be harmful, there are already tons of ways to make them responsible, both through laws with fines and other penalties, as well as consumers going elswhere when the word gets out.
These are all far more preferrable to Hillary or other Dems reaching into my pocket for more taxes. Now if she'd like to give tax breaks to companies that spend profits on alternatives, that's fine. But for her to suggest that she'll "take" the profits, through taxes or whatever, I'd call her something more colorful than "socialist".
"Hillary and Marx are socialists, because they want to take funds without giving a choice."
By that definition, then, Bush is a fascist and a murderer because he wants to wage war without giving a choice.
What's that? Bush is the commander in chief and it's his job to wage war (after Congress declares it)?
But, then, isn't it Clinton's job as Senator to make laws and decide who to tax and how much and how to spend that?
Huh, what do you know?! She's not a socialist, just another democratic capitalist like each of us.
Come on, y'all. We're adults here.
Dan's rhetoric is horrendously deceitful... Typical Liberal "Dan-ite" speech.
Dan thoroughly distorts Luke 12:48; the application is not temporal... it is spiritual. This is another example of how the Liberal... sorry, "Progressive", church has distorted Jesus' message.
"To whom much is given," in terms of knowledge of God's word/plan/desire, "much is required." When we stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ (Only Christians will do this, by the way) His primary concern will be with what we did with the saving knowledge we have of Him... did we spread the Gospel? Go out into the highways and hedges and compel the halt and lame to come to the marriage feast? Jesus had a lot to say about treating ones neighbors as one's self, of visiting the prisoners, feeding the hungry, protecting the poor... all these things are part and parcel of loving one's neighbor as one's self... part and parcel with BEING a child of God and a follower of Christ. But Christ came to seek and save that which was lost... not just to feed the hungry.
When we stand before Him we will be judged by what we did or did not do to advance the Good News unto all the people of the Earth. Feeding the poor, comforting the widow and fatherless, visiting the prisoners; all these are BY-PRODUCTS of the Christian walk... not the POINT of the Christian walk. The point is to win souls for Christ.
Let's consider God's remade Earth... The New Jerusalem as the capitol of the world... no more sin... everything restored to its former glory and better! All the nations will bring the best of their treasures... their work, their harvest; art, craftsmanship, to New Jerusalem... A tithe if you will, gladly given in worship of the everlasting God. Is that socialism? Not hardly. It's joyous adoration. Socialism is a human construct... one predecated (sp?) on human perceptions of societal perfection, and every bit a distortion of truth as Dan's butchery of scripture. Hillary's philosophy is steeped in "socialism"... Remember 'It Takes a Village'? Hillary-care? Universal healthcare that would have made it a crime to seek out ones own private doctor? Is this a good thing? Now she wants to take the profits of a private corporation; from its shareholders (many of whom/which are retirement funds)?
Dan speaks from ignorance, and a bloated sense of self-enlightenment. His speech and message is dangerous... to America, to Christianity, to the average citizen.
As to Hillary's role as senator. It is her role to represent the state of New York... That should be her only allegience beyond the Constitution. Senators represent their respective states, Represntatives represent their respective districts. I can't believe I'm having to spell this out to an otherwise intelligent person. It is not Hillary's job to decide how to tax people! Or steal from them.
Dan--
Socialists broadly believe in three things.
1) International organizations should have more power than nation-states.
2) The natural system of human liberty, called capitalism by its enemies, should be replaced with one giant human factory.
3) Traditional morality should be replaced with free love.
Of these points, the second is most fundamental in socialist thought. To keep the theory out of it, socialists basically believe our richers use war and religion to dupe the masses into supporting their greedy ends.
In common dialogue, much of socialist theory is simplified by both sides for the sake of quick communication. The cultural Marxism of Marcuse, Gramsci, and Lukacs is simply called "political correctness." Democrat politicians, instead of talking about the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, talk about the "two Americas" instead. Instead of expounding Lenin's novel 1905 theory about capitalism creating wars to gobble up resources, people simply say "no war for oil."
So socialism is a bigger part of our discourse than the average person considers. It is not a slander to point this out, but a fact.
test
By the same token jason one can point to republicans and see connection to deeper fascist thought. It is not slander to point this out it is just fact. Both spectrums of political dialog have their extreme ends. But in modern American politics to label someone who has a very centrist voting record as an extremist could be construed as slander.
I don't entirely disagree with Bent. I would contend, however, that there are more fascist elements within the Democratic Party than in the Republican.
Accusations of fascism would carry more weight if it could be proven that the intentions of this administration were as is believed by the left. To wage war to fight a known evil is hardly an indication of fascism. To say otherwise is slander if there is no proof behind the accusation. This is fact. Another fact is that the redistribution of wealth, the centralization of the health care situation, these are signs of a socialist mindset.
"Accusations of fascism"
When I accused Bush of fascism, it was a deliberate joke to make a point. Words have meanings.
But I've apparently stepped in to some kind of twilight zone where some mad dictionary has taken over. Hillary's a socialist who wants to force free love and nationalize companies. Bush is a fascist. Eric's an atheist. Jason walks on the moon.
Words have no meanings. Say whatever you want as long as it helps demonize those you hate and lionize those you agree with.
Up is down. Sure! Why not!
Peace, y'all. (Or should I say, "war"?)
Eric said:
"Dan thoroughly distorts Luke 12:48; the application is not temporal... it is spiritual."
You don't take the bible literally, then, Eric?
The context of Luke 12:48 is a parable that Jesus was giving to teach about how we should live.
And [Jesus] replied, "Who, then, is the faithful and prudent steward whom the master will put in charge of his servants to distribute (the) food allowance at the proper time?
Blessed is that servant whom his master on arrival finds doing so..."
To whom much responsibility and opportunity has been given, much will be expected.
To those who are blessed in the world with health, they will be expected to use that health for the Kingdom of God in service to humanity - especially the poor and oppressed; for those who have money, they would be expected to use that money in service to God and humanity - especially the poor and oppressed - this is an ongoing and pervasive theme throughout the Bible.
To whom much has been given, much is expected.
Let's not spiritualize the Bible until it's meaningless, friends (and here, I'm directing this towards our Bible-believing friends here moreson than those with little use for the Bible).
Dan, whether Jesus meant tangible or intangible funds, the point is He was talking about giving from your heart, voluntarily, to help the less fortunate.
He never advocating taking from the rich, against their will, and giving it, whether they work for it or not, to the poor.
When He said much is expected, He was referring to what is right and seemly in God's eyes.
It rightfully is to be expected for a Godly man to make the choice to give. It is an evidence of obedience, out of Love and fear of God. ("fear" being interpreted as respect for God)
It is an individual choice to give, not a government mandate.
I'm not disagreeing at all with you Mark, on that point. We are in full agreement.
Well, then. I must be wrong! :)
And in 33 AD, Jesus said, "To whom much has been given, much will be expected."
"What's your point? That Hillary, Marx and Jesus were all socialists?"
Dan, to 'label' Jesus as a socialist is putting God in a box. By your standards Luke 19:11 thru 27 would make Jesus a capitalist.
My point (comparing two 'people') highlighted similarities in ideology. Divinity had nothing to do with it.
Hillary is her own worst enemy.
"I want to take those profits..."
She hands ammunition on a silver platter to her opponents.
For such an allegedly brilliant woman, she's not too bright.
She puts her foot in her mouth nearly as often as Joe Biden.
Hillary can say anything she wants, & does, as long as it comes across sounding good - take on the evil oil companies, etc. It is only to garner votes. If she, God help us, was President she could very well take a different course. It is only sounds bites & postering on her part. I wonder if her stock portfolio includes oil investments.
It's not her supposed socialism that bothers me , but rather her cynical use of words (hat tip to Dan) to further her ambitions. She has no loyalty to any anyone or any idealogy except to Hillaryism.
She is the epitome of the cynical, postering politician.
Now, to THAT I can say a huge Amen, sister Francis Lynn.
I don't like Hillary or trust her further than I could throw her, her husband or Bush. Nominating her is the one step the Democrats could take to really mess up what should otherwise be an easy election for them.
Words have meaning, Dan
Francis = male Frances = female
I not your sister
This plan of hers is so absurd even she has to know it. This is most likely just an attempt to pander to people like my liberal relatives who despise big oil!!
Dan said,
"When I accused Bush of fascism, it was a deliberate joke to make a point. Words have meanings."
But I was actually referring to elashley. In any case, I'm well aware that words have meanings. I wish those on the left would learn that as well. For a politician, it would be appreciated that they keep it in mind also since mindreading is not a widespread ability. So if Hillary says, "I want to take those profits..." you have to believe she means she wants to take those profits. Whether outright or through taxation is of little concern as either is unacceptable. It ain't hers to take. Much may be expected, but if it ain't yours, keep your hands off it.
Now the application of the term "socialism" to Hillary is perfectly appropriate considering her desire to redistribute wealth as well as her health care position, as I said earlier. There is no similar justification for applying the term "fascist" to Bush or his admin.
Oh please! Sound the alarm! The poor oil companies will go out of business!!!! The sky will certainly fall, next!
The day the oil companies go out of business will be the day the last drop of oil is drained from this good earth.
Get a hold of yourselves, men.
Now, there's an interesting idea! Mudkitty thinks the oil companies could still operate with no profits. Anyone else think so?
Maybe she's onto something. Maybe the oil companies could operate as a non-profit organization. How many people do you think they could get to volunteer to work for them without pay?
Think of the possibilities. It boggles the mind.
"Using them deceptively to try to demonize your opponent..."
Pot...Kettle...obviously, Dan.
You put words in my mouth. That's intellectually dishonest. I never said, nor did I even imply that oil companies should operate without profits. Or that any company should operate without profit. That's a typical rightwing strawman, psudo-smear.
Oil Companies don't pay their fair share of taxes. Big dif.
There's peanut oil, and olive oil...and...bio-fuels...they all should make profits too.
Don't be disingenuous.
mudkitty said...
"You put words in my mouth. That's intellectually dishonest. I never said, nor did I even imply that oil companies should operate without profits. Or that any company should operate without profit."
No, Kitty, I didn't put words in your mouth. Read the entry. Read the portion of Hillary's speech that I highlighted in blue.
She is the one that said she wants to take the profits. I simply said if the oil companies profits were taken away, they would go out of business.
You commented on that, didn't you? You scoffed at the idea that taking away the profits would make them go out of business. Didn't you? If you didn't imply that, by your previous statement, "The day the oil companies go out of business will be the day the last drop of oil is drained from this good earth." what were you implying, taken in context?
mudkitty--
You should review the history of the railroads.
In a famous case in 1910, the Interstate Commerce Commision ruled to deny the railroads any increase in freight rates, given their huge profits. The railroads presented counterarguments -- the rising wage costs, inflation, and the need to upgrade their infrastructure, but Louis Brandeis argued that the railroads were powerful enough to economize and deal with it.
They didn't. The do-gooder progressives of the era practically wiped out an entire industry.
You can see how reactionary the impulse for stasis is in another case. In business, the only color is green. Railroads, with their economic power, didn't police by their own free will the southern race laws, and were damned by the Democrats for putting profit ahead of the general welfare by doing business with Negroes. The Democrats, just like they do today, passed all sorts of legislation. One case eventually went to the Supreme Court, which through Democrat judicial activism upheld the infamous Separate but Equal doctrine in 1892 during the Plessy versus Ferguson case.
Democrats should respect individuals, which is the good, and stop worshipping the state, which is a form of evil known as the common good.
I think the Model T which was introduced in 1908 probably had more to do with the decline of the railroads.
Your second paragraph is unclear. Are you saying that using laws to encourage social justice ideals in business situations is a bad thing?
Increasing taxes on cigarettes and laws requiring cigarette manufactures to publicize the dangers of smoking has led to huge reductions in smokers. This is to the public good, because those reductions have eased the costs to Medicare to pay for the diseases smoking inevitably brings about. The cigarette manufacturers aren't out of business, but yet the world is a slightly better place to live.
"...yet the world is a slightly better place to live."
The United States of America, perhaps, but Big Tobacco still brings in billions of dollars peddling their poisons and associated diseases around the world.
Once again, for all my readers that still don't understand what I was commenting on. Hillary said she wants to TAKE the oil company profits.
She didn't mention taxes and she didn't say she only wanted to take SOME of their profits. She implied she wants to take ALL their profits, and that would cause them to go out of business. It won't happen of course, but it is a clear indicator of where her mind is.
bent--
One, markets allow individuals to customize their lives the way they see fit. Democrats still have an aristocratic attitude that they exclusively know the good and individuals do not, an attitude that goes back to the slaveholders that used to run the Democrat Party.
Two, even in 1918, 98% of all intercity travel in the United States was done by train. The Progressives and the ICC crushed it with a series blows, setting rates, work rules, hours of service, passenger train routes, and schedules. It was just like Atlas Shrugged, but actual history. Between 1900 to 1915, for example, costs went up 30% for the railroads, while the ICC only allowed a 5% rate increase. The ICC was only concerned with public need, not company profit and loss statements, and the longterm fate of the railroads was sealed.
Unhappy with their success, progressives now want to go after auto manufacturers and oil companies, and practically any successful business for that matter. They won't be happy until we're all noble savages living in some miserable pre-capitalist paradise- that is the progressive idea of progress, after all.
Once Hillary has accomplished all of this, then the One World Government will march in to enslave us all under the guise of having our best interest at heart.
Words have meaning. Yes they sure do.
Can any of you tell me why Hillary and other liberal socialists call it "Universal Health Care"? If it is supposed to cover every citizen of the United States, and it is going to be paid for by the citizens of the United States through our taxes, shouldn't it be called "National Health Care"?
"Universal Health Care" denotes WORLD WIDE HEALTH CARE! Doesn't that sound like One Worldism? Hmmmm
Post a Comment