Mr. Obama- are you familiar with a document known as...

[Jeemie]

...the US CONSTITUTION?

Well, I am...or at least I THOUGHT I was.

Now, I'm not so sure. Maybe you can help me find out where in the Constitution it gives the federal government the power to take profits from a private company and distribute them out to whoever you wish.

Obama Decides Oil Companies Should Fund Emergency $1,000 checks to the people

Now...you may think the GOP's intense focus on drill, drill, drill is stupid.

you may think the GOP has totally fucked this country over and deserves to be tossed out on its ear.

You may think oil companies have made too much money over the past couple of years.

You probably can make a good case for all of the above.

But that a candidate for the highest office in the land has proposed taxing a SINGLE industry SOLELY for the purpose of distributing the money to the people ought to SCARE THE LIVING SHIT out of you.

It really ought to- no matter WHAT your political persuasion.

I thought I'd seen some real whoppers in my lifetime, but this utterly lamebrained idea is up there with the worst of them.

What the HELL is this country coming to? This country has a real shot to put the first REAL-LIVE SOCIALIST ever into the White House?

SHEESH!!!

[Here's Fanny!]

...the US CONSTITUTION?

Well, I am...or at least I THOUGHT I was.

Now, I'm not so sure. Maybe you can help me find out where in the Constitution it gives the federal government the power to take profits from a private company and distribute them out to whoever you wish.

Obama Decides Oil Companies Should Fund Emergency $1,000 checks to the people

Now...you may think the GOP's intense focus on drill, drill, drill is stupid.

you may think the GOP has totally fucked this country over and deserves to be tossed out on its ear.

You may think oil companies have made too much money over the past couple of years.

You probably can make a good case for all of the above.

But that a candidate for the highest office in the land has proposed taxing a SINGLE industry SOLELY for the purpose of distributing the money to the people ought to SCARE THE LIVING SHIT out of you.

It really ought to- no matter WHAT your political persuasion.

I thought I'd seen some real whoppers in my lifetime, but this utterly lamebrained idea is up there with the worst of them.

What the HELL is this country coming to? This country has a real shot to put the first REAL-LIVE SOCIALIST ever into the White House?

SHEESH!!!

They've been doing it to tobacco companies for years.

[TheConfessor]

Post subject: Mr. Obama- are you familiar with a document known as...

You might want to address your concerns to some other message board. I doubt that he reads this one.

I'm not saying it's a good idea (and I own some stock in Chevron), but there are lots of industry specific taxes, so I don't think this would be a new precedent.

[Jeemie]

...the US CONSTITUTION?

Well, I am...or at least I THOUGHT I was.

Now, I'm not so sure. Maybe you can help me find out where in the Constitution it gives the federal government the power to take profits from a private company and distribute them out to whoever you wish.

Obama Decides Oil Companies Should Fund Emergency $1,000 checks to the people

Now...you may think the GOP's intense focus on drill, drill, drill is stupid.

you may think the GOP has totally fucked this country over and deserves to be tossed out on its ear.

You may think oil companies have made too much money over the past couple of years.

You probably can make a good case for all of the above.

But that a candidate for the highest office in the land has proposed taxing a SINGLE industry SOLELY for the purpose of distributing the money to the people ought to SCARE THE LIVING SHIT out of you.

It really ought to- no matter WHAT your political persuasion.

I thought I'd seen some real whoppers in my lifetime, but this utterly lamebrained idea is up there with the worst of them.

What the HELL is this country coming to? This country has a real shot to put the first REAL-LIVE SOCIALIST ever into the White House?

SHEESH!!!

They've been doing it to tobacco companies for years.

Not and just handing it out willy-nilly as checks to people.

And I wrote a letter to his website.

[SportsFan68]

...the US CONSTITUTION?

Well, I am...or at least I THOUGHT I was.

Now, I'm not so sure. Maybe you can help me find out where in the Constitution it gives the federal government the power to take profits from a private company and distribute them out to whoever you wish.

Obama Decides Oil Companies Should Fund Emergency $1,000 checks to the people

Now...you may think the GOP's intense focus on drill, drill, drill is stupid.

you may think the GOP has totally fucked this country over and deserves to be tossed out on its ear.

You may think oil companies have made too much money over the past couple of years.

You probably can make a good case for all of the above.

But that a candidate for the highest office in the land has proposed taxing a SINGLE industry SOLELY for the purpose of distributing the money to the people ought to SCARE THE LIVING SHIT out of you.

It really ought to- no matter WHAT your political persuasion.

I thought I'd seen some real whoppers in my lifetime, but this utterly lamebrained idea is up there with the worst of them.

What the HELL is this country coming to? This country has a real shot to put the first REAL-LIVE SOCIALIST ever into the White House?

SHEESH!!!

They've been doing it to tobacco companies for years.

Not and just handing it out willy-nilly as checks to people.

And I wrote a letter to his website.

Well, they hand the checks willy-nilly to state legislatures. The money is supposed to go to education about, prevention of, and treatment for tobacco-caused illnesses.

It's been used for some of that in some states, but other states hand some of it willy-nilly to people for college scholarships.

[Thousandaire]

The oil companies are so scared they are lowering prices.

"We are the ones we've been waiting for." - Obama.

You can't make this stuff up!

[silverscreenselect]

As anyone knows I am no fan of Obama. In fact, his new "plan" is suspiciously like Hillary's proposal to lower the gas tax and make up for it with a windfall profits tax on oil companies. Of course, Mr. Flip Flopper at that time said that was silly and wouldn't save most people any real money. Now, he has his own windfall profits tax and proposes to save people "real" money by keeping their tires inflated to the right pressure.

But all taxation is a form of taking from some people and redistributing it to others. Gasoline taxes take from motorists and "give" to those who build and repair roads. Social security takes from working people and gives to retired. Property taxes take from those who own property and give to teachers and those who build schools. Our government could not function at all without redistribution of funds in the form of taxes and government spending.

Now you can argue about the wisdom of this particular taxing scheme. But Obama is no socialist. He knows full well that this won't float, but he's throwing it out there in a blatant attempt to pander when he criticized Hillary (and McCain) for doing virtually the exact same thing three months ago. Obama is a man with no real guiding political principles who says what he feels he needs to say from moment to moment to curry favor. Remeber this is the same guy who voted for the Bush/Cheney energy bill that Hillary and McCain opposed.

The Democrats are on the verge of doing something so incredibly stupid I thought it would be virtually impossible. While I thought Obama as a candidate was badly flawed, I felt sure that Democrats would be able to boost their totals in the House and Senate sizably. The map still favors them but thanks to Obama and Pelosi, they are giving Republicans their prime issue on a silver platter.

With Iraq and to a certain extent the lending crisis receding in folks' minds, the big issue is oil prices. The Republicans have come up with a united front and a plausible sounding (although horribly flawed) answer. The Democratic response has been to dither, to propose inflating tires and a "comprehensive" energy plan that is never explained, and to use strongarm tactics to shut down the House. The Democrats need to get back in front of this issue, speak with one voice and give people something that is plausible and realistic. Of course, they have the wrong candidate for that since Obama is never one to consistently stick to brass tack issues. The longer Republicans can drive the narrative on oil prices (and when Congress fails to vote to allow drilling this fall, that will become a huge Republican talking point), the more it's going to help them in fall elections.

[nitrah55]

And hasn't the state of Alaska for years been sending checks to residents the funds for which come from taxes on oil companies?

I don't know if it's a good idea, but it's not a new idea.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

And hasn't the state of Alaska for years been sending checks to residents the funds for which come from taxes on oil companies?

I don't know if it's a good idea, but it's not a new idea.

I believe this is primarily royalty payments from oil leases of state lands

[Barack_Obama]

Dubya, Dick, and Alberto Gonzalez have treated the USCON as toilet tissue for 7 and a half years. I didn't hear any whining to this hysterical extent before.

[BackInTex]

Dubya, Dick, and Alberto Gonzalez have treated the USCON as toilet tissue for 7 and a half years. I didn't hear any whining to this hysterical extent before.

Quit falling asleep in church and you would have.

[ne1410s]

Quit falling asleep in church and you would have.

Silly goose: He attends a mosque. (Rush told me so.)

[Jeemie]

This tax is fundamentally different from other taxes, which is why it incenses me so much.

This tax essentially says "The price of a good or service is too high- therefore, we're going to force the seller of that good or service to lower it via a tax".

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that gives the government such a power...and it would not work anyway.

I am amazed people cannot see the difference between this and other taxes.

[BigDrawMan]

This tax is fundamentally different from other taxes, which is why it incenses me so much.

This tax essentially says "The price of a good or service is too high- therefore, we're going to force the seller of that good or service to lower it via a tax".

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that gives the government such a power...and it would not work anyway.

I am amazed people cannot see the difference between this and other taxes.

I am amazed that some people voted for Bush

Twice

[Jeemie]

This tax is fundamentally different from other taxes, which is why it incenses me so much.

This tax essentially says "The price of a good or service is too high- therefore, we're going to force the seller of that good or service to lower it via a tax".

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that gives the government such a power...and it would not work anyway.

I am amazed people cannot see the difference between this and other taxes.

I am amazed that some people voted for Bush

Twice

This is not political.

Had McCain or Bush or anyone proposed the same or similar tax, I would have said the same thing.

So you're essentially telling me you'll put up with crap like this because "at least it's not Bush"?

Is that what it's come to?

[BigDrawMan]

This tax is fundamentally different from other taxes, which is why it incenses me so much.

This tax essentially says "The price of a good or service is too high- therefore, we're going to force the seller of that good or service to lower it via a tax".

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that gives the government such a power...and it would not work anyway.

I am amazed people cannot see the difference between this and other taxes.

I am amazed that some people voted for Bush

Twice

This is not political.

Had McCain or Bush or anyone proposed the same or similar tax, I would have said the same thing.

So you're essentially telling me you'll put up with crap like this because "at least it's not Bush"?

Is that what it's come to?

-----------

i am saying that the judgment of anyone who voted for Bush twice must be seriously questioned.
You are railing against what a President Obama might do, yet I dont recall you ever criticizing any of his many failures.Ergo,your judgmnet would seem to be seriously impaired when it comes to all things political.
And you voted for him.
twice.
He will go down as one of our five worst presidents.There is much to criticise there.If I were you I would be too ashamed to open my yap.You missed big on this one.

George Patton was in charge of the US sector in post war Germany.A de-nazification directive was issued for the german govt.Things felll apart.Patton halted the directive.He said better a capable Nazi than an incompetent Christian.

[BackInTex]

i am saying that the judgment of anyone who voted for Bush twice must be seriously questioned.

As much of a disappointment as Bush has been, the only question of judgment must be on the primary votes. Given the options on the national ballot, Bush was still the best choice.

Regarding questionable judgement, I'll say the judgement of anyone considering voting for Obama once is more serioulsy impaired, and he isn't even running against Bush.

[juliea344]

Given the options on the national ballot, Bush was still the best choice.

Wow. IMHO he was clearly the worst choice the first time around. The second time around the best choice for me would have been ANY other choice.

[BackInTex]

Given the options on the national ballot, Bush was still the best choice.

Wow. IMHO he was clearly the worst choice the first time around. The second time around the best choice for me would have been ANY other choice.

Even with 20/20 hindsight, Bush is hands down better than Gore. Gore is an absolute nut, in the same vain as Perot, however Perot lives his nutty ideals. Gore only expects others to live his 'ideals'.

[BigDrawMan]

Given the options on the national ballot, Bush was still the best choice.

Wow. IMHO he was clearly the worst choice the first time around. The second time around the best choice for me would have been ANY other choice.

Even with 20/20 hindsight, Bush is hands down better than Gore. Gore is an absolute nut, in the same vain as Perot, however Perot lives his nutty ideals. Gore only expects others to live his 'ideals'.

---------------

calling Bush a "disappointment" is like calling William Taft "a little chunky".

I had expectations of him being the next James Buchanan and even I was disappointed.

You saw his incompetence for 4 years, then voted for more of it.
A random drawing of those 35 and over provided a better choice.

I bet you voted for him 4 times.
The rest of the country thanks you for encouraging him.

putting ideology in front of competence gets you what we have.

I hope you and you and your ilk can think more elastically in the future.

[Jeemie]

I am amazed that some people voted for Bush

Twice

This is not political.

Had McCain or Bush or anyone proposed the same or similar tax, I would have said the same thing.

So you're essentially telling me you'll put up with crap like this because "at least it's not Bush"?

Is that what it's come to?

-----------

i am saying that the judgment of anyone who voted for Bush twice must be seriously questioned.
You are railing against what a President Obama might do, yet I dont recall you ever criticizing any of his many failures.Ergo,your judgmnet would seem to be seriously impaired when it comes to all things political.
And you voted for him.
twice.
He will go down as one of our five worst presidents.There is much to criticise there.If I were you I would be too ashamed to open my yap.You missed big on this one.

George Patton was in charge of the US sector in post war Germany.A de-nazification directive was issued for the german govt.Things felll apart.Patton halted the directive.He said better a capable Nazi than an incompetent Christian.

I didn't vote for Bush twice.

I have been plenty critical of him.

And even had I voted for him twice, that does not prevent me from railing against an idiotic policy such as Obama espoused here.

It doesn't take any great "judgment" to understand the Constitution doesn't give Congress the right to say private businesses must give price relief to Americans.

That you turn such a clear-cut issue into something political says LOADS about your own personal judgment.

[Jeemie]

So...in an attempt to un-deraill my thread.

Who here thinks it's a good idea to tell private companies they have an obligation to offer price relief to consumers, and if they don't do it, the government will force them to? Or that the government has such a right?

Who here thinks such a policy would work in the first place?

[Thousandaire]

So...in an attempt to un-deraill my thread.

Who here thinks it's a good idea to tell private companies they have an obligation to offer price relief to consumers, and if they don't do it, the government will force them to? Or that the government has such a right?

Who here thinks such a policy would work in the first place?

The gov't already does that, in numerous industries. Google "milk price controls" for one.

[TheConfessor]

Who here thinks it's a good idea to tell private companies they have an obligation to offer price relief to consumers, and if they don't do it, the government will force them to? Or that the government has such a right?

You seem to be confused. No one is proposing that the oil companies be taxed to give "price relief" to consumers. If anything, taxing oil companies would increase the price of gas at the pump.

I watch hours of news every day. I leave the TV on most of the time when I'm home doing other things. I'm not a big fan of Obama's proposal, but at least I've heard what he actually said. He wants to put an extra "windfall profits" tax on the oil companies, essentially because they can afford it and they're the convenient bad guys, and people cheer when you say you're going to go after them. This money would go into the U.S. Treasury, along with all other tax revenues. In the same speech, Obama made a variety of promises regarding redistribution of wealth to a variety of people, without regard to how much gas they may or may not buy. The big promise was to send most people a check for $1000, to spend as they see fit, not necessarily on petroleum products. Actually, only the most deserving 95% of people would receive these $1000 checks, since the top 5% of earners are "rich" anyway, and it always sounds good when you promise to stick it to the rich people. Most rich people also buy gas, but Obama's proposal doesn't offer any "price relief" to them, or to anyone else. People who don't even drive or own cars would still get their $1000 check, even if they have never bought gas in their lives. Other beneficiaries of Obama's largess include old folks. He said he would fix it so seniors who make less than $50K/year wouldn't have to pay any taxes. There were other specific promises to dole out money to different special interest groups, but I don't recall the details. But at least I saw the speech and I know that there is no gas "price relief" involved, since that doesn't even make sense.

Bottom line -- this proposal is like any other tax. The government takes money from one group and gives it to someone else. It's business as usual. But it's probably better than spending money they don't have, which is what usually happens.

I know that the vocal partisans here aren't really interested in the truth, but I occasionally get sucked into these political threads. I'll try harder to resist.

[wbtravis007]

I think that you don't know quite as much about The Constitution as you seem to think that you do.