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.

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.

This is a nice catch by the good folks at Hot Air. Sounds like a prelude to pulling a Chavez and nationalizing our oil companies. Remember she tried to do that once before with the health care system….Hot Air article link Video: Hillary wants to take…

Matt Drudge wraps up one week and starts another every Sunday night at 9:30. Don’t miss another minute of The Drudge Report…….

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.

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.

Well she never said the "S" word, but there is only one facet of government that fits her descriptions and wishes.
Finally, she is showing her true colors. 

Hat Tip Hot Air.
……

Video: Hillary wants to take oil profits and put them in “strategic energy fund” -Hot Air-Punished for successful business practices…  Nice. ……

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….”

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.

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.

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.

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.)