Video: Hillary wants to take oil profits and put them in “strategic energy fund”

posted at 1:12 pm on February 2, 2007 by Ian

Speaking at the DNC’s winter meeting, Hillary Clinton said she wants to profits from oil companies and “put them into a strategic energy fund.” Lock box, anyone?

Flashback: “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” (h/t Texas Rainmaker)


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Marx
Lenin
Stalin
Mao

Would

Be

Soooooooooooo

Proud….

/shed tear

Tim Burton on February 2, 2007 at 8:39 PM

I’ve said it time and time again but the achilles heel of the Republican and Democrat bases are their tendency to be uncompromising. This is good in the aspect that it clearly defines the core differences and causes the dialog needed to develop complex policy, but when taken to extremes becomes its own “religion” as it were.

Bradky on February 2, 2007 at 7:28 PM

OK, Brad. Let’s take a good look at what compromising has gotten President Bush. He got the approval of Americans as well as the liberal ‘progressive’ [insurance] politicians before going into Afganistan AND Iraq. Have you seen his approval numbers lately? Have you heard how those same liberals support him today? Are you nuts?!?!

Rush has it right on compromising. Republicans who do so will only live to regret it as the Democrats only live to drag conservatives, and Americans DOWN!

BTW, perhaps someone can explain to me what the heck a “strategic energy fund” is. Money used to support our Heros? I highly doubt that!

DannoJyd on February 2, 2007 at 9:22 PM

…the achilles heel of the Republican and Democrat bases are their tendency to be uncompromising…The only people you are likely to win over with these kinds of arguments are those who already believe that way. The Democrats spent twelve years in the wilderness because of this tendency – is that what the Republicans want to repeat?

Bradky on February 2, 2007 at 7:28 PM

Bradky, I agree with you fully that the two major parties are rigid, especially on the extremities.

I disagree that all of a sudden the populace wakes up and gets bright and ready, just ahead of the elections. That’s when they begin to really listen to the candidates, but they are what they are throughout. See the poll from AP’s Cairo Book Fair thread.

I’m neigher a Democrat, nor a Republican, and I really don’t care for how long either was/remains in the ‘wilderness’. Also, I stated on numerous occasions that I have not and will not try to convince anyone of their politics or religion. To me these are personal decisions, each one of us should make.

I consider our conversations just that.

Therefore, my intent was neither to offend, nor to convert, anyone, not here, nor elsewhere. It was simply to state the slumber in which the populace finds itself, happily.

Would I not be so concerned about my self-preservation and, don’t laugh, a humanist, and would I possess a really mean streak, I’d wish what is coming upon our land due to this naiveté. But, in my own, perhaps to others strange, way, I’m trying to just shout out my frustration.

I do understand what you wrote and I do condemn both parties for looking down at, and taking for granted, hard-working, honest families and people. Those are not the ones I had in mind when I posted above, regardless of which party they adhere to.

Entelechy on February 2, 2007 at 9:26 PM

Hmmm. It’s confusing on this blog to be talking about AP, Associated Press, but go back and read it fast and the mind registers it as AllahPundit.

naliaka on February 2, 2007 at 9:56 PM

Bradky,

I agree that it is desireable to be civil in trying to persuade the other side, and we don’t need to call them idiots. However, just as DannoJyd pointed out Bush’s attempts to reach out to the Democrats gained him nothing. I recall Bush rubbing Ted Kennedy’s back – talk about reaching out to touch someone. The reward was to receive Ted Kennedy’s knife in his back later.

I fault the Republicans for not using their majority when they had it. Pelosi and the Democrats have wasted no time in running roughshod over the Republicans since last month. They talked nice, but are playing hard.

It boils down to trying to do what’s best for the country with a clear conscience while you are in office. History will be the judge. I think its hopeless to try to change the leftist Democrats minds, so full speed ahead when you have control of the rudder.

Texas Mike on February 2, 2007 at 10:43 PM

I guess everyone is officially on notice in this country. You make too much money, the dems will TAKE it from you for redistrobution.

oakpack on February 2, 2007 at 10:46 PM

Texas Mike and Bradky, I wish to be very clear – I had no specific side in mind – to me idiots are all who fall for political crap, no matter where it comes from.

In this case, what Mrs. Clinton was spewing yesterday/today – energy taxes, ending the war with one stroke of the pen if she becomes president, zero-sum baloney, etc.

And again, persuasion of others is not the objective of my comments. Respectfully,

Entelechy on February 2, 2007 at 10:50 PM

Allahpundit et al,

She doesn’t say she wants to “TAX those profits and invest them” she says she wants to TAKE those profits”.

So, that would be something new, right?

Buy Danish on February 2, 2007 at 10:52 PM

Entelechy, a face nu nelinişte despre ce art.hot. aere Bradky says , fiindcă el asemănător la spre murături meci despre nothing , şi has un talent : art.hot. mai mult el says , art.hot. mai mic sense el a face

Janos Hunyadi on February 2, 2007 at 11:53 PM

Entelechy on February 2, 2007 at 9:26 PM

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Bradky on February 3, 2007 at 12:16 AM

How COMMIE of her!

NRA4Freedom on February 3, 2007 at 12:16 AM

DannoJyd on February 2, 2007 at 9:22 PM

DannoJyd,

Perhaps you travel in circles that Teddy, Bush, and all the power players are in. I don’t. When I refer to convincing people and toning down the rhetoric these are the people I have in mind.
I still don’t agree with the constant name calling as a tactic from either party.
If that is your tactic of choice go for it. But consider what the rhetoric was like before the election of 06 as well as after. I don’t need to quote it, you can go to any left or right site there is and see it.

Bradky on February 3, 2007 at 12:20 AM

Correction “These are the people refers to you, I and our neighbors and fellow “anonymous” citizens.

Bradky on February 3, 2007 at 12:20 AM

But consider what the rhetoric was like before the election of 06 as well as after. I don’t need to quote it, you can go to any left or right site there is and see it.

Bradky on February 3, 2007 at 12:20 AM

Agreed – there is much to be said for civility on all sides. Sometimes there needs form for there to be substance.

Emmett J. on February 3, 2007 at 12:59 AM

how much outrage can one really muster when it’s clear what her intentions are?

Allahpundit on February 2, 2007 at 1:47 PM

I have no idea what you’re talking about. She says “I want to take these profits”. Is there some greater detail in her proposal that we are not privy to?

Jaibones on February 3, 2007 at 1:33 AM

Personally I think she just set herself up for the following question in the debates…

Bradky on February 2, 2007 at 2:01 PM

Bradky, whom, exactly do you suppose would be asking HRH Hillary that question?

Jaibones on February 3, 2007 at 1:50 AM

Jaibones on February 3, 2007 at 1:50 AM

Oh I don’t know… Obama, Edwards, Biden, take your pick. If she wins the nomination for the Democrats, whoever the Republican nominee is will certainly ask her something along those lines. I used to think a lot of Tim Russert as “somewhat” objective as debate moderator but not anymore. Most of the debates allow the candidates to ask a couple of questions to the other.

Bradky on February 3, 2007 at 1:58 AM

I take her at her word. She she would take the oil company’s profits and I think that is exactly what she meant.

Everybody now, sing along with me.

This is the way we tax and spend…
tax and spend…
tax and spend…
This is the way we tax and spend,
we’re Democrats in office.

georgej on February 3, 2007 at 2:43 AM

I’m curious: how many people reading this thread agree that Hillary Clinton just might be the next Hugo Chavez?

Allahpundit on February 2, 2007 at 4:43 PM

It’s not so much what Hillary would do, but what happens next if Hillary’s tactic is successful.

She represents a point along a path of evolution. Look at how democrat policy has changed over time. Social Security, and higher taxes, interrupted by Reagan. The county where I live votes 3 to 1 democrat, and they welcome Hillary’s policies, and would be receptive to politics even more leftist.

The economy in this state (take a guess) really sucks, and still the vote is 3 to 2 (statewide).

rockhauler on February 3, 2007 at 6:21 AM

Ah. I was trying to imagine one of the DNC/MSM stiffs pulling that off. Not even Russert, although maybe on his show…

Jaibones on February 3, 2007 at 7:43 AM

Bradky on February 3, 2007 at 1:58 AM

(above)

Jaibones on February 3, 2007 at 7:43 AM

A very scary clip

dingoatemebaby on February 3, 2007 at 9:30 AM

Two words:

Cattle futures.

Four more words:

B.J. Clinton’s autobiography money.

If more egregious “profits” were ever reaped, then let She Who Is Without Windfall casts the first Marxist confiscatory stones.

(And stones she surely has.)

profitsbeard on February 3, 2007 at 11:15 AM

Hillary’s proposals show a classic Democratic flaw: Socialist taxation to be administered by inefficient, corrupt, and marginally effective government buracracy that primarily benefits the patrons of the Left.

While many will disagree with me, I do believe that some government “guidance” is needed to promote alternative energy technology.

Oil companies will follow profit, not what is in the best interest of the nation. They need incentives to pursue alternativs, and perhaps some disincentive to exclusively pursue fossil fuels. I think that Hillary’s methods, however, are far off base, ignore the realities (as usual with the Left) of the world we live in, and are a method to favor the Left (if not more) than pursue goals that are in the best interest of the nation.

Oil exploration and production is extremely expensive, technical, and long term. Her methods would lead the United States into a real problem with energy because she would disrupt a process that is measured in decades to provide for our energy needs.

If she wanted to do some good NOW, it would be to increase refinery construction and nuclear energy capacity that has been restricted for so very long by environmentalists – a primary component of the left.

omegaram on February 3, 2007 at 11:33 AM

Does Hillary ever come up with new ideas or does she just pick different industries to nationalize? First, it was the health care industry she wanted to nationalize. Now it’s the oil industry. Basically, she wants to steal the profits of any successful company.

Yes, I’m sure if the government skims the profits from the oil industry that will improve service at gas stations. We’d be back to the 1973 oil crisis lines. And I’m sure that all those oil company employees would be delighted to be turned into government employees.

This is just the beginning of Hillary’s campaign. We have dozens of stupid Hillary brainstorms to come.

Tantor on February 3, 2007 at 3:01 PM

Ahhhh she wants to “take” those profits.

Important point- she said “take”…not “tax”…”take”

Nice, welcome to the communist states of america.

quax1 on February 2, 2007 at 6:09 PM

That word “take” sent such a shiver into me. She is really one scary person.

Socialized gas stations and medicine – a one stop shop and Hillary has her hand on a big giant rectal thermometer.

Candy Slice on February 3, 2007 at 3:02 PM

I’m glad you’re confident. I would NOT put it past her if she had power as POTUS.
I’m curious: how many people reading this thread agree that Hillary Clinton just might be the next Hugo Chavez?

Allahpundit on February 2, 2007 at 4:43 PM

“………. don’t cry for me, Argentina….”

PinkyBigglesworth on February 3, 2007 at 8:27 PM

Homestar/Strongbad 2008.

Coronagold on February 4, 2007 at 11:26 AM

Tell you what, Hillary – tell you what: YOU’RE a Socialist, so you’ll LOVE this idea: What does your husband bring in for the average speaking engagement? (I’ll bet it’s not chump change.) Why don’t we adopt a new tax based on the (audited) amount muckey-mucks like you and Bill “earn” and we’ll just take a nice percentage off the top of that? We’ll call it a “Pol B.S. Tax” – the more b.s. you feed us, the more we take. Waddaya think?

SpartRan on February 4, 2007 at 11:39 AM

Speaking at the DNC’s winter meeting, Hillary Clinton said she wants to profits from oil companies and “put them into a strategic energy fund.” Lock box, anyone? —- Ian

I guess its a little late to mention this, but Ian, you left the key word “take” out of the above sentence.

Maxx on February 4, 2007 at 5:10 PM

I’m curious: how many people reading this thread agree that Hillary Clinton just might be the next Hugo Chavez?

Allahpundit on February 2, 2007 at 4:43 PM

She’s aready Hugo Chavez.

Maxx on February 4, 2007 at 5:51 PM

Does rolling back the huge tax breaks inexplixibly given oil companies under W count as “taking oil profits”?

If so, I am all for it.

My favorite news item over the weekend: Exxon/Mobil offering scientists a bounty for penning articles to refute the UN climate report. I will say one thing for these guys: they put it out there.

honora on February 5, 2007 at 12:05 PM

Does rolling back the huge tax breaks inexplixibly given oil companies under W count as “taking oil profits”?

Yes, as those reductions in taxes helped to provide the profits that the oil market is currently experiencing.

You say you’re “all for” removing the “huge tax breaks inexplixibly given oil companies”, which is a tax increase and not a decrease of the ‘debt owed to America’ the liberals think taxes are, but are you also “all for” the higher costs of products such a tax increase will guarantee?

Remember, the oil companies will not just absorb the costs that an increase in taxes will incur, they will pass the costs on to the consumers as they do not want to have a dramatic drop in revenue and the subsequent loss of investment dollars, which are based on a company’s profits, that the stock market provides .

Do you think the investors will keep the stock of a company that shows a massive reduction in profits? If you do, then you have a limited grasp of how stock market investors operate. Most would start to sell their stocks which would quickly lead to a massive devaluation of that stock, just as we saw with the “dot com” bust. Remember what happened then? Billions of dollars were lost by investors and our entire economy went into a downward spiral. The same would happen to the oil company’s stock if their taxes were suddenly increased.

Any large increase in taxes will have a negative effect on the whole economy and not just “redistribute” the wealth from profits as the liberals love to do. All in all, it’s a very bad idea.

RedinBlueCounty on February 5, 2007 at 2:24 PM

One for the vault – Of Hugo and Hillary - socialism and power, both anti-freedom!

Entelechy on February 6, 2007 at 5:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2