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

Hillary a no good commie?

Nothing new here, move along please.

JackM on February 2, 2007 at 1:21 PM

I know Breitbart thinks this is big news, but I honestly don’t get it. She wants to raise taxes on oil companies. So what? She’s a Democrat.

Allahpundit on February 2, 2007 at 1:21 PM

Thus ends Hilly’s career and political aspirations. That is, until the oil companies get a hold of her…

Mazztek on February 2, 2007 at 1:24 PM

“put them into a strategic energy fund.” LOL, just another pot for the Dems to dip into for social give away programs

In the mean time, Nancy P. would like the profits to go into a Botox fund.

BobK on February 2, 2007 at 1:27 PM

She wants to raise taxes on oil companies. So what? She’s a Democrat.

Allahpundit on February 2, 2007 at 1:21 PM

Ditto that, AP. Some dems have been touting a windfall profits tax since last year. Expect the cry to get louder after Exxon and Shell earnings announcements yesterday. Record profits for both.

BacaDog on February 2, 2007 at 1:29 PM

We already live in a communist state, she just pulled the curtain back a bit farther.

windbag on February 2, 2007 at 1:31 PM

No news here. She is pandering directly to the base. Big city workers. Meals-on-wheels for the masses. Evil-Star Chamber-Profiteers! And people wonder why gas prices go up.

Limerick on February 2, 2007 at 1:33 PM

Notice what she said. Not “takes some profits and put them in a SEF” but “take those profits and put them in a SEF”. It sounds much like what Russia is doing.

Nethicus on February 2, 2007 at 1:33 PM

I know Breitbart thinks this is big news, but I honestly don’t get it. She wants to raise taxes on oil companies. So what? She’s a Democrat.

Allahpundit on February 2, 2007 at 1:21 PM

Her redistrubutionst tendencies are old hat; what’s newsworthy is her brazenness in stating her intended outcome. More than anyone, this is the snapshot of Hillary’s unfitness for the office she is now pursuing. Most Democrats have enough sense to mask their new tax proposals a little bit. Hillary just goes gangsta, and says “I want to take your money (profits)”.

Does anyone have any archival footage of when she said the same thing regarding the Bush tax cuts? That audio is even more harrowing.

Kid from Brooklyn on February 2, 2007 at 1:33 PM

I know Breitbart thinks this is big news, but I honestly don’t get it. She wants to raise taxes on oil companies. So what? She’s a Democrat.

Allahpundit on February 2, 2007 at 1:21 PM

The big news is its a Democrat talking like the Democrats we know and love which has been somewhat rare until recently.

.

GT on February 2, 2007 at 1:35 PM

How about taking all of the profits from senators and put that in a “childrens health care system” to take care of un insured children? Everything over their yearly salary goes into this fund. Also all profits from the movie industry. How about profits from the tuna industry? Seeing as they are exempt from wage laws.
Talk about windfall profits, how about the speaking fees for ex politicos…that is a windfall profit.
How about profits from…Sesame Street, also with record profits.

right2bright on February 2, 2007 at 1:36 PM

The best part is where she believes the energy companies (which will no longer be companies, rather agencies… an agency) will maintain those profits once they realize they’re a revenue generator for the government. They’ll be about as profitable as the postal service.

askheaves on February 2, 2007 at 1:38 PM

The best part is where she believes the energy companies (which will no longer be companies, rather agencies… an agency) will maintain those profits once they realize they’re a revenue generator for the government. They’ll be about as profitable as the postal service.

askheaves on February 2, 2007 at 1:38 PM

Between this and Sarbanes-Oxley, Atlas is warming up his shrugging muscles.

Kid from Brooklyn on February 2, 2007 at 1:39 PM

What profits? Didn’t I hear that only 30% or so of oil company profits are domestic? Won’t they just pull more of their business out of our country?

RushBaby on February 2, 2007 at 1:39 PM

Notice what she said. Not “takes some profits and put them in a SEF” but “take those profits and put them in a SEF”. It sounds much like what Russia is doing.

You think she’s going to levy a 100% tax on all oil profits? Color me highly skeptical.

I don’t know. To me this is like a Republican saying, “I’m going to let business owners keep their profits.” Again, where’s the big Breitbart bombshell here?

Allahpundit on February 2, 2007 at 1:39 PM

Sounds like nationalizing the oil industry to me. Chavez taught her this.

shirgall on February 2, 2007 at 1:40 PM

You think she’s going to levy a 100% tax on all oil profits? Color me highly skeptical.

I agree with you, AP, about her intentions. The problem, though, is the cavalier manner in which she throws around such totalitarian phraseology.

DaveS on February 2, 2007 at 1:44 PM

Again, where’s the big Breitbart bombshell here?

Allahpundit on February 2, 2007 at 1:39 PM

There isn’t. It is all about tearing her down. The nutroots are in a war to make sure the most liberal candidate possible gets the nod. The last election has filled the fringe of the Dems with hallucinogens and until they come down they will attack attack attack.

Limerick on February 2, 2007 at 1:46 PM

Again, where’s the big Breitbart bombshell here?

Really, I don’t think Hillary really believes in anything except her candidacy and bank account. She just says what she thinks will get her the donations, nomination and the POTUS spot – the latter just for her pride’s kicks.

Editor on February 2, 2007 at 1:46 PM

Yeah, I want her cattle future gains, the profits from her book and her husband’s speaking fees in my own personal strategic fund, but for some reason I think she’ll say no.

Sensible Mom on February 2, 2007 at 1:47 PM

I agree with you, AP, about her intentions. The problem, though, is the cavalier manner in which she throws around such totalitarian phraseology.

Yeah, I guess I can see that. Although, again, how much outrage can one really muster when it’s clear what her intentions are?

Allahpundit on February 2, 2007 at 1:47 PM

The day she can show that she has contributed anything, anything at all to the generation of those profits, then she can have a say in what happens to them. Until that day, please, shut up.

wiserbud on February 2, 2007 at 1:48 PM

You think she’s going to levy a 100% tax on all oil profits? Color me highly skeptical

I don’t think so, either. My issue lies with her choice of words and tonality. Hitlary breathes, eats, sleeps, and lives socialism. She cannot live without threatening to seize someone’s property for “the common good”, and she doesn’t have the poker face to hide it. At least Johnny Reid Edwards has enough sense to sugarcoat his redistributionism with talk of “investments”. Hillary just wants to snatch my money.

Kid from Brooklyn on February 2, 2007 at 1:51 PM

Yeah, I guess I can see that. Although, again, how much outrage can one really muster when it’s clear what her intentions are?

Socialism is always outrageous.

Kid from Brooklyn on February 2, 2007 at 1:53 PM

Let all profits from the state run oil companie…wait, Oil companies are not govbernment agencies… Isn’t what she proposing unconstitutional?
She wants to seize the rightfully earned funds of a corporation and out it into the National treasury? Bite that crap.

Wheres my “Down with socialism” button? you knwo the one, has Hilarry with a hammer and sicle and a Big line diagnolly through it

Wyrd on February 2, 2007 at 1:54 PM

You think she’s going to levy a 100% tax on all oil profits? Color me highly skeptical.

I don’t know. To me this is like a Republican saying, “I’m going to let business owners keep their profits.” Again, where’s the big Breitbart bombshell here?

There’s no way anyone who back a total seizure of profits by Hillary. But when she says something like that, something that implies total seizure of profits, it really paints a clear picture of what she wants to do, not what will actually happen.

Nethicus on February 2, 2007 at 1:54 PM

Personally I think she just set herself up for the following question in the debates: “So Senator Clinton, you have said all oil profits must be put in the strategic energy fund. To date, how many of your investments have specific instructions that no profits can be the result of oil investments or need to be returned to the treasury? And what advice do you have for the small investors who depend on these to help their IRAs grow?”

Nothing like selfish interests to sway a course of action.

Bradky on February 2, 2007 at 2:01 PM

Not the first time she’s said something like this. Don’t forget this. 2004 campaign:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1162267/posts

“We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good”

lorien1973 on February 2, 2007 at 2:01 PM

She is a neo-Marxist/Socialist who wants to take what you have and redistribute tiny portions to all of us poor dumb sods who are too stupid to make 100x our inital investment in cattle futures like she did.

Our country is broken, no matter who gets elected we are still going down the dark hole of history.

Neo on February 2, 2007 at 2:03 PM

Like Rush says, “Words mean things.” She says she wants to
“take” those profits. That’s just outright theft, and people in a capitalist society ought to generate some outrage about that! Even if it’s what we know the Dems want to do all the time, it’s simply outrageous and should be pointed out as such. So many voters are just passive and numb that these things have to be pointed out and pounded on at every opportunity. I’m outraged that the MSM is completely ignoring this today. Shouldn’t someone call a socialist a socialist?

What if she were speaking to a group of successful small business owners? “Did you make a profit this year? Great! I’ll take that. I know better than you what to do with it than you do.” How well would that go down?

aero on February 2, 2007 at 2:06 PM

She said “I want” to take those profits. SHE wants to take the money because SHE knows how to spend it better.

I want her to keep right on running her trap all the way to 2008.

Looking forward to her campaign.

Talon on February 2, 2007 at 2:09 PM

Again, where’s the big Breitbart bombshell here?

Allahpundit on February 2, 2007 at 1:39 PM

You missed it…….. She kept calling them “Democrats” and “Democrat Paty”. NOT “Democratic”…..

They can’t even get it right wrong……

PinkyBigglesworth on February 2, 2007 at 2:11 PM

Hillary knows what to do:

1. Build the economy so that everyone is successful, wealthy and above average.

2. Identify those having the greatest success, and then tax the begeezus out of them.

Pretty simple.

Lawrence on February 2, 2007 at 2:16 PM

Hey Ian…..

Bryan is trying to copy you.

Talon on February 2, 2007 at 2:23 PM

Wow… does this make her a Communist? or a Facist? or just pro HUGE government and anticapitalist?

Color me confused…

Romeo13 on February 2, 2007 at 2:27 PM

Another step on the left’s wish to nationalize all industry and dictate how they operate. Socialism alive and kicking in the left. She probably lies awake at night, trying to figure out how chavez did it. She knows she is smarter than him.

still468 on February 2, 2007 at 2:27 PM

Hillary is sounding like Hugo Chavez.

If you look closely at Exxon Mobil’s numbers the big majority of their profit is made overseas. How many other companies are bringing billions of dollars back to the USA to offset all the Chinese products we buy from Wal-Mart?

The federal government also gets a big piece of the oil company profits through taxation – especially the alternative minimum tax. Then, they get a piece of the profits again when big oil pays dividends to its shareholders which is also taxed.

The people running the big oil companies are a lot smarter than any of these of the Democrats. If they switched places the government would be run efficiently and making a surplus. But boy, would there be layoffs. With Democrats running the oil companies the employees and payroll would triple and the companies would be posting losses.

Texas Mike on February 2, 2007 at 2:30 PM

As a share holder in oil, I am deeply offended.

How dare they make a profit and boost my share price.

Kini on February 2, 2007 at 2:32 PM

Romeo13:

Wow… does this make her a Communist? or a Facist? or just pro HUGE government and anticapitalist?

Well, I can tell you what she’s NOT–she’s no centrist, which is what the MSM is trying to sell her as. That’s why what she said is outrageous. And that’s why the MSM ignoring what she said is outrageous.

(By the way, she’s a socialist.)

aero on February 2, 2007 at 2:33 PM

Like many of us do with Arkin, I take her words to mean exactly what she said. Hillary Chavez in ’08!!

MCPO Airdale on February 2, 2007 at 2:34 PM

Texas Mike:

With Democrats running the oil companies the employees and payroll would triple and the companies would be posting losses.

Not to mention that the loss of the profit motive would kill the industry’s incentive to continue providing quality products and services, and lots of it. We’d have gas shortages in a heartbeat, and what we got would be a crappy product.

aero on February 2, 2007 at 2:35 PM

Bradky on February 2, 2007 at 2:01 PM

Her answer would be; “that all of my assets and investments are in a blind trust and I have no idea of what companies or investments I have, nor do I know the exact profits of said investments. I have decided to do that to provide that my opinions and actions are for the best interest of the country; unlike past administrations that have depended on oil profits, and government contracts to build their fortunes. We have a vast economy, and there are many other avenues to invest in, investing in companies that make obscene profits tht will not lower their prices does not build our economy, but hurts the lower income wage earners trying to make a living. They have a difficult time obtaining health care and the added burden of excessive energy prices makes it even more difficult. I am trying to help the average American, not burden him with excessive gas and heating costs. Those added costs, shifted to low income wage earners, could provide health coveage for 100,000 (or whatever amount she wants to say) children. I want obscene almost illegal, profits to be shifted to save our children. Every child in America, with the last three years profits by the oil companies, could be covered by a comphrensive health care program…instead of lining the pockets of these already wealth men. Thanks for asking this very important question, and raising the important topic of what is more important; our childrens welfare, or the incomes and massive bonuses of oil profiteers.”
That is a question she would love to answer.

right2bright on February 2, 2007 at 2:40 PM

If she get elected, say goodbye to your 401Ks

Kini on February 2, 2007 at 2:46 PM

Between this and Sarbanes-Oxley, Atlas is warming up his shrugging muscles.

Kid from Brooklyn on February 2, 2007 at 1:39 PM

:)

Entelechy on February 2, 2007 at 2:47 PM

Yeah, I guess I can see that. Although, again, how much outrage can one really muster when it’s clear what her intentions are?

Allahpundit on February 2, 2007 at 1:47 PM

But you seem intent upon demonstrating how much complacency you can muster.
Why?

Stephen M on February 2, 2007 at 2:49 PM

What’s the bombshell? Oh, I don’t know, nationalizing the oil industry a la Chavez seems quite a bombshell to me.

Capitalist Infidel on February 2, 2007 at 2:49 PM

Hillary Chavez

dallas94 on February 2, 2007 at 2:52 PM

You think she’s going to levy a 100% tax on all oil profits? Color me highly skeptical.

No, just 60% or so.

Rick on February 2, 2007 at 2:53 PM

“I want to take those profits” is really alarming rhetoric. I agree that she probably isn’t contemplating a 100% tax on oil-company profits. But she sure leaves herself open to that misinterpretation. And I don’t think it’s a misinterpretation to see that she is cynically stirring up envy to advance a socialist, redistiributionist, command-economy agenda.

How socialist? Why, with the Clintons, the answer is however much the market will support.

Hillary just isn’t a careful speaker off the cuff. She doesn’t seem aware of how her rhetoric comes across. I think there’s a reason she’s embarked on a “listening” tour: she gets herself in trouble when she speaks.

see-dubya on February 2, 2007 at 2:58 PM

Nancy Pelosi is not my speaker.

locomotivebreath1901 on February 2, 2007 at 2:58 PM

AP:

You think she’s going to levy a 100% tax on all oil profits? Color me highly skeptical.

That’s fine. Even if we all agree that she doesn’t seriously mean that she wants to take all the oil companies’ profits, shouldn’t someone ask her what percentage she really meant? 1%? 10%? 50%? 95%? And under what legal authority would she “take” those profits, anyway?

You’re just shrugging your shoulders and rolling your eyes about this–she’s just a typical Democrat saying typical Democrat things–but I maintain that it’s a serious concern for a major candidate to say something like this, and someone should press her for clarification.

aero on February 2, 2007 at 3:02 PM

I can’t wait until some liberal who wants to take away macdonald’s profits and invest it in “alternate food sources” gains power. Enjoy your guilt free tofu America.

Darth Executor on February 2, 2007 at 3:03 PM

Well that’s the end of that – No White House for you!

It is one thing to say you are going to force companies to do certain things by legislation – “if you don’t put Ethanol or Liquid Coal in our pumps in 5 years, you can’t do business in the US.”

But to say, we are gonna “take your money!” That is just the end of her – mark my words. Any illusion that she was somehow rational is out the window.

All this crazy talk about “highest profits” ever – it’s because people are “guzzling” the stuff. That’s what you get in a “Global Economy”.

Agrippa2k on February 2, 2007 at 3:09 PM

Agrippa2k:

But to say, we are gonna “take your money!” That is just the end of her – mark my words. Any illusion that she was somehow rational is out the window.

That would only be the case if anyone but us were talking about it. As AP said, he fails to see the bombshell in this. The MSM doesn’t think it’s worth commenting on, so 95% of voters will never hear a word about it.

aero on February 2, 2007 at 3:14 PM

Enjoy your guilt free tofu America.

Yeah, but what happens when my tofu rations run out?

Kid from Brooklyn on February 2, 2007 at 3:17 PM

Wouldn’t the oil companies go bankrupt before any taking of profits happen? They’re publicly traded companies so wouldn’t shareholders sell stock in preparation for a “government takeover”?

icelandicfarmer on February 2, 2007 at 3:23 PM

I guess there’s one good thing about the wicked witch of the east running for Pres. If she gets way out of line we can just touch her with the Constitution and she’ll melt.

I’ll be she’s spent years studying Saul Alinsky and five minutes at fifty yards looking at our founding documents.

Speakup on February 2, 2007 at 3:31 PM

Some dude on Fark had the best response I’ve seen to the lefty “outrage” over oil profits…

If only there were some way for all of us to become owners of Exxon, some sort of system where we trade shares of a company on a national exchange.

DaveS on February 2, 2007 at 3:40 PM

Truly, I have practically no love at all for the mafioso that is known to us as the Oil Industry. But this is America damnit. We are capitalists, we are not Communists!

She’s just talking out her ass, it’s electioneering time after all. She’ll “take” nothing, becuase she can’t even though she and her cronies think they can. And if she taxes their profits, thanks to her and her cronie ilk that supports her efforts (if that should come to pass) they’ll simply pass on the cost to us, the consumer. So all she’d really be doing is re-taxing our already multipley taxed oil commodities anyway… and that makes perfect since since the Democrats run the show now.

SilverStar830 on February 2, 2007 at 3:46 PM

But you seem intent upon demonstrating how much complacency you can muster.
Why?

Why? Because I’m a closet liberal, Stephen. That’s what you’re thinking, isn’t it?

I’m not trying to “muster complacency.” I’m trying to have us not wet our pants over a semantic distinction. She’s going to raise corporate taxes; she’s not going to turn into Hugo Chavez, and we all know it, and it’s disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Allahpundit on February 2, 2007 at 3:47 PM

I will rejoice and sing one day when we are gifted with a ‘preview comment’ button one day

LoL … i need to proofread a bit closer, but a preview would make that much easier.

SilverStar830 on February 2, 2007 at 3:53 PM

I’m trying to have us not wet our pants over a semantic distinction. She’s going to raise corporate taxes; she’s not going to turn into Hugo Chavez, and we all know it, and it’s disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Agreed, she’s not going to turn into Hugo Cesar Chavez y Frias overnight. But her repeated use of his rhetoric, her utter contempt for the concept of the individual and her craven disregard for the concept of private property make me reach for a fresh man-pon. There is absolutely nothing reassuring or restorative about the concept of a Hillary Clinton presidency. Just a stockpile of man-pons and a prayer for Rudy.

Kid from Brooklyn on February 2, 2007 at 4:07 PM

right2bright on February 2, 2007 at 2:40 PM

I don’t agree. That’s the rhetoric of the 60′s when there were very few individual investors compared to today. My point is that the question rather than the answer would be a red flag for voters.

I’d agree with AP comments at 3:47 as more realistic as to “what it means”.

But in my opinion this tendency to latch onto every little thing that a Democrat says and extrapolate it to mean the end of democracy and capitalism is what really turns off the majority of voters.
Of course like your’s it is only my opinion.

Bradky on February 2, 2007 at 4:22 PM

I’m with Allah on this… what she said is not shocking at all… It’s Hillary F’ing Clinton.

What I find disturbing is that this sort of language has been determined to provide some political benefit when used in front of a sizable left-wing audience, a significant portion of which, coincidentally, applauds the actions of Hugo Chavez who is actually doing what Hillary certainly would not.

DaveS on February 2, 2007 at 4:25 PM

Selective socialism. I think we need to cut the senators pay in half, all senators, that saves millions. Anyone in office that writes a book, and that book sells primarily because of the fame from being in PAID PUBLIC OFFICE, should forfeit that entire book income. All investments made while in office should gain at prime rate only, any investments earned or gained over prime should go into this ‘fund’ Hellary keeps touting.

She is F*@king INSANE. where would it stop? Software? Liquor? How about the BILLIONS made by insurance companies who wont pay claims anyway???
These fruitcakes won’t quit until the left/dems have taken 51% or more of YOUR INCOME. Only the rich, feeling guilty lefties do this crap. Give away your own damn money, and hubby slicks, he’d only get into more trouble with it anyway. –
..Slick Willy, unemployed, in the White House…thats just as scary!

shooter on February 2, 2007 at 4:39 PM

she’s not going to turn into Hugo Chavez, and we all know it, and it’s disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
Allahpundit on February 2, 2007 at 3:47 PM

I’m glad you’re confident. I would NOT put it past her if she had power as POTUS. She is irrational & delusional.

shooter on February 2, 2007 at 4:41 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

For the danger that she poses to our Republic? Hillary is potentially worse than Chavez.

Kid from Brooklyn on February 2, 2007 at 4:51 PM

I’d vote no on AP’s question at 4:43.

I do think that if Hillary were elected in 08 she would be the model of moderate centrism for social programs in the first term because she would want to win a second term. Love him or hate him Bill was a master at going with the center when necessary, which for him was the last six years of his term.

She would be tougher than people give her credit about foreign policy simply because she would be expected to show she could.
The Supreme Court in both terms and presidential directives in the second term is where she would be likely to do the most social engineering.

Go ahead and slam me as a Hillary loving traitor but a little realism is in order at times. She’s a politician first like most of the current crop of contenders in BOTH parties.

Bradky on February 2, 2007 at 4:57 PM

As a share holder in oil, I am deeply offended.
How dare they make a profit and boost my share price.
Kini on February 2, 2007 at 2:32 PM

See here? This is real. Think about what hillary COULD do. Not as Hugo, but by destroying 10 to 20 million retirement portfolios. The greatest generation and baby boomers have the most to lose. With the stroke of a pen, billions of dollars would be at risk of her “taking”, and wall street doesn’t do much in 20/20 hindsight. Risk is the keyword here.
They seem to be a bit PROACTIVE in their ways…silly them. The ‘Shill’ would not stop with oil companies. Crash sounds familiar to me with some one who is so sheltered , so delusional and so selfishly unconcerned about what really would happen. She’s more likely to be thinking “in 30 years they’ll think I was a hero and saved the continent from ——-”. fill it in. Economies are very fragile, especially with someone like her in THE office.

shooter on February 2, 2007 at 5:00 PM

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

Hugo Chavez as a frootloop liberal? Check.

Hugo Chavez as a socialist dictator? Probably not. Well, depends on her Congress. With Pelosi as speaker– ergh, I really don’t want to think about that.

Nethicus on February 2, 2007 at 5:01 PM

Some dude on Fark had the best response I’ve seen to the lefty “outrage” over oil profits…

If only there were some way for all of us to become owners of Exxon, some sort of system where we trade shares of a company on a national exchange.

DaveS on February 2, 2007 at 3:40 PM

you have got to be kidding me. someone actually said that??????

pullingmyhairout on February 2, 2007 at 5:04 PM

And AP, answering your question: she won’t become the next Hugo Chavez, but she sure would like to be!!

pullingmyhairout on February 2, 2007 at 5:07 PM

An aside … she also bloviated that were she president in October of 2003, she would not have started this war.

However .. had she not voted for it, then Bush wouldn’t have been… well, you know where I’m going with this.

ugh

yo on February 2, 2007 at 5:18 PM

Bradky on February 2, 2007 at 4:22 PM

All of the presidents and most of the candidates running for pres. put their investments in blind trusts. In the 60′s they did not, in the 90′s and after they certainly have. No extrapolation, she states she wants to confiscate profits, that is socialism. Look at her history, she is a socialist pure and simple. She, like most of the DNC, want income distribution. If that offends you then you should back away from Hillary. Don’t listen to what she says, look at her history and what she has proposed to do in the past. That is true with every candidate.

right2bright on February 2, 2007 at 5:20 PM

Bill was a master at going with the center when necessary, which for him was the last six years of his term.

She’s not slick willy, the best vacuum cleaner salesman in the world she ain’t.

Nothing stuck to Mr Teflon and she does not have his snake charmer ways.

Speakup on February 2, 2007 at 5:29 PM

AP you silly goose!

She was NAMED after Hugo Chavez BEFORE she was named after that guy that climbed Mt. Everest(Sir Edmund) BEFORE he actually climbed it.

Please try to keep up here.

Seriously…Hillary just spoke what is really in her heart. I do not believe that she is a democrat nor is she a communist. She is Hillary and she is above all of that. What you are looking at is a tyrant in waiting. I do not believe for one second that she is committed to anything other than Hillary.

As I said, I am looking forward to her campaign. Now that she “officially” is in the race, there will be more cameras rolling when she opens her yap. Good. Keep talking Hillary.

Talon on February 2, 2007 at 5:35 PM

right2bright on February 2, 2007 at 5:20 PM

I don’t dispute your definition of socialism in the context you described.

Almost every politician says they are shocked by the corruption and campaign finance rules. But at the end of the day they don’t do anything to upset the balance. Who will finance her if they truly believe she wants to oversee the nationalization of all businesses?

This is rhetoric to play to the base. Assuming she gets the nomination she then has to play to the general population. No different than many of the things Republicans promise but don’t deliver on because it is too “hot” when considering reelection calculations.

My main point is that demonizing anyone turns off the majority of people and tends to backfire. It is not an issue of whether the demonization is “justified”. The base of the right sees it this way just as the base of the left sees things in a myopic kind of view.
Winning an election requires framing the debate/issues in more logical, less emotional characterizations.

Not sure where I said I support Hillary but your assumption that a simple observation means allegiance underscores my point about the emotional reactions effect on one’s perspective.

Bradky on February 2, 2007 at 5:40 PM

I don’t think Hillary wants to become a socialist dictator. But I do think she would very much like to nationalize as many aspects of the economy as possible because she honestly, truly believes that government is the better custodian of industry and spending than private entities are. But she doesn’t have to be Hugo Chavez to wreak havoc with the economy. The oil industry is a humongous chunk of our economy, affecting almost every other industry in one way or another. I think that it wouldn’t take much tinkering with the oil industry and its profit structure to cause a pretty significant negative ripple effect throughout our entire economy. Adding even more taxes to the oil companies’ already sizeable tax burden is not going to make us “energy independent.” Nuclear plants and more drilling would do that a lot faster.

aero on February 2, 2007 at 5:43 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

IF she were elected, she sure could be but I doubt she will for the simple fact that Americans don’t elect angry people to the office of the Pres.
During the next campaign the heat will be turned up from all directions and I predict she can’t hold onto her, must not explode..I’m not going to explode…the public face can’t hold forever.

Speakup on February 2, 2007 at 5:44 PM

you have got to be kidding me. someone actually said that??????

You’ve obviously never been to Fark. :-) It is an incredibly sarcastic culture.

And guys… lighten up. Hillary is not Hugo Chavez, does not aspire to be Hugo Chavez, and will never be Hugo Chavez.

She will use his rhetoric, though, to score points with a rabidly pro-totalitarian, uber left wing base.

DaveS on February 2, 2007 at 5:58 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

Nice, welcome to the communist states of america.

quax1 on February 2, 2007 at 6:09 PM

Liberal politicians have been bashing the oil industry and making similar threats since I was a kid in the sixties and likely were before that. This is not going to happen.

Bradky on February 2, 2007 at 6:20 PM

Actually, I think Hillary is just speaking to her base trying to ratchet her rhetoric to the left of Obama. As a desperate housewife she knows just what to say to her soft hearted and soft headed constituents. It especially plays good to the socialists who simply don’t understand economics.

I doubt she would carry through on taking big oils profits. Just like spitting into the wind you don’t mess around with Jim or big oil. She has, inadvertently, causing her own surge -ie – big donations to the PACs which will be supporting her opponent.

Speaking of Chavez nationalizing oil Venzuela already did that back in the 60′s I think when they nationalized Mobil Oil’s refinery and other companies assets there.

A little historical tidbit – When Khafadi try to nationalize Mobil’s companies in Libya Mobil was ready and had them loaded with debts. Libya had a change of heart and decided against that action. So, the moral is don’t mess around with Big Oil.

After Chavez runs off all investment and wealth out of his country, and they need a big company to come in and rework their oil fields and do the mammoth construction projects who they gonna call? – Ghostbusters? Even the Chinese may be a little wary.

Texas Mike on February 2, 2007 at 6:21 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

I DO think Hillary would like to be a socialist dictator. But she’ll settle for what she can get, which is considerably less.

Laura on February 2, 2007 at 6:32 PM

Does this idiot know what profit margins are…?
Anyways if these idiots raise taxes on gas the consumer gets stuck with the bill, the oil companies will still want to make money…I say lower taxes on the oil companies to lower gas prices…

noodlehead on February 2, 2007 at 6:43 PM

What say we call it the “People’s Energy Fund.” Catchy, no?

Mojave Mark on February 2, 2007 at 6:51 PM

To compare Hillary to Hugo, gives the assh–e an undeserved break and lets him diminish/get away with his political, economic and human atrocities and megalomania.

All she is and always will be is an idealistically dangerous European-style socialist. Like that model really works…but tell that to the sheeple – they’re too busy watching The View and American Idol and playing ostrich.

to latch onto every little thing that a Democrat says and extrapolate it to mean the end of democracy and capitalism is what really turns off the majority of voters.Of course like your’s it is only my opinion.

Bradky on February 2, 2007 at 4:22 PM

Bradky, it doesn’t turn them off. She is fully aware of the sheeple/Peterses’ ignorance.

Also, this is a warning to all the thinking and freedom-loving people – the Left, and their MSM, are now and will continue to sell a heady and false notion of zero-sum.

The idiots fall for this easily, even though it isn’t true, unless we talk about having to share, for example, loved ones. Otherwise the success ‘pie’ is unlimited, but the leftie elite will lie, lie, lie, and the media will happily aid them in their deceipt-for-votes.

Entelechy on February 2, 2007 at 6:56 PM

I say lower taxes on the oil companies to lower gas prices…

I agree noodlehead!! You really are no noodlehead. With lower taxes a lot more companies will get in the oil business and cause more supply making prices go down.

Hillary should call for opening up closed areas to drill if we really don’t want our money going to fund madrassas where they train children to hate and kill us.

I remember when oil was at $11 a barrel during husband Bill’s presidency – there were no calls to help oil companies. The average profit on a gallon of gas industry wide was 2 tenths of a cent. If you bought 10 gallons of gas and took two pennies out of the little tray by the register there went the profit.

Texas Mike on February 2, 2007 at 6:57 PM

IIRC, the average tax on a gallon of gas in the US is .50 (Fed and state) and Exxon earned .09 per gallon. If Exxon earned $40 billion last year, doesn’t that mean the government took $200 billion out of your pocket, just from Exxon purchases? What does Hillary and Co. do with all that moolah now? Exxon processes the gas and delivers it to you, the government just sticks out their hand. How many hundreds of billions does the government have to suck out of this industry? Talk about greed.

waelse1 on February 2, 2007 at 7:04 PM

but tell that to the sheeple – they’re too busy watching The View and American Idol and playing ostrich……
The idiots fall for this easily….
Entelechy on February 2, 2007 at 6:56 PM

Entelechy,

I doubt you see yourself as doing this but these types of statements are received by many as arrogant and dismissive. The majority of voters don’t start revving up on political issues and background two years out from the elections. This is not because they don’t care or are sheep or idiots. It is because they have lives to lead and not enough time. I think in another thread someone pointed out that the View has about three million regular viewers – 1% of the population.

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.

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

1) The GOP should come out VERY strong and advise anyone who wants ExxonMobil to share their obscene profits to buy into their Dividend Reinvestment Program. Make all the grubbers stockholders and no one will squeek any more about any oil company making profits. What is it to enroll, $300? Then $50 a month and yer on yer way to Oil Baron.
2)Did you all see that gushing, lovey dovey, multicolor Associated Press rubber stamp on Hugo Chavez’s complete destruction of democracy in Venezuela? It was jaw-dropping. He’s taking over everything and the AP says well, some people object (party poopers), but he’s wildly popular! Yeh, Hillary dreams of such things. With AP gushing about how wonderful it is and being reprinted in every local paper in America, Hillary would like to create a fertile ground, or soften people up to the concept of dictatorial control in the USA. Hillary has already demonstrated that she is willing to go outside the constitution to gather power for herself. Co-president, remember? An unelected position, she shoved Gore out of his VP’s office.
3)Hollywood is the most egeracious example of wealth taking. Actors can do one role and sit on their duffs for eternity, living off reruns. No one else on the planet can do that. A carpenter cannot get royalties on any chair he makes, even if resold. Ditto vehicles. GM doesn’t get any residual from a thrice sold 1996 Suburban. WHy does Hollywood soak us endlessly? Mickey Mouse’s TM locked in for the next 100 years? Foul! From a company that was built on public domain material??? At least ExxonMobil sells new gas every time, not reruns. Tax Hollywood. They’re just drinking and snorting their money away. Someone else could use that money better, right?

naliaka on February 2, 2007 at 8:01 PM

whoa
egregious
usually don’t bother with the little typos, but that was unusually, uh…egregious

naliaka on February 2, 2007 at 8:05 PM

Comment pages: 1 2