Rasmussen: Plurality of Democrats support … nationalizing America’s oil industry; Update: McCain rips Obama on windfall profits tax

posted at 10:50 am on June 17, 2008 by Allahpundit

I was going to lead with something about McCain wanting to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling — duly qualified, of course, with conservationist panders about leaving the final decision up to the states, keeping ANWR off-limits, etc etc — but this is bigger news, isn’t it?

Suddenly that infamous Maxine Waters clip seems less funny than ominous. Great Society II fever — catch it:

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 29% of voters favor nationalizing the oil industry. Just 47% are opposed and 24% are not sure.

The survey found that a plurality of Democrats (37%) believe the oil industry should be nationalized. Just 32% of voters in Barack Obama’s party disagree with that approach. Republicans oppose nationalizing the oil industry by a 66% to 16% margin. Unaffiliated voters are opposed by a 47% to 33% margin…

Data released yesterday showed that Americans believe developing new energy sources is the best long-term solution to the nation’s energy problem. Forty-seven percent (47%) said private companies were more likely to solve the nation’s energy problem than government research programs. But, at the same time, only 52% said companies should be allowed to keep the profits from the discovery of any alternative fuel sources.

MM’s complaining about the windfall profits tax but she doesn’t know the half of it, eh? Don’t worry, boss: Even with a Democratic president and Congress, greed and influence peddling will ensure a strong hand for oil lobbyists to deter the worst Chavista outcome. As for offshore drilling, Maverick has the public on his side but that won’t stop Obama from whining that partial solutions aren’t worth pursuing because, hey, they’re only partial. In that sense, he’s like his own number-one fan, setting up a false dichotomy between drilling and developing alternative fuels to give himself room to demagogue McCain. Read McCain’s speech from December to the Center for Hydrogen Research to see how false that dichotomy is.

Here’s his new ad, coincidentally released just prior to the wave of environmentalist heart-ache his speech on drilling’s sure to unleash. See if any lines from the narration stand out to you.

Update: My, Maverick sure has taken a turn on this issue.

Sen. John McCain criticized Barack Obama’s call for a windfall profits tax on the oil industry, predicting it would worsen America’s dependence on foreign energy supplies.

“If that plan sounds familiar, it’s because that was President Carter’s big idea, too. …I’m all for recycling, but it’s better applied to paper and plastic than to the failed policies of the 1970s,” the Republican presidential contender said in excerpts of a speech planned for Tuesday evening…

He also called for greater use of nuclear power as well as for alternative energy sources and greater conservation measures.

Belated exit question: How can he criticize Obama on this point with a straight face? May 14:

Update: A reader e-mails to say that the video above is from May 6, not May 14. My mistake.


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

The survey found that a plurality of Democrats (37%) believe the oil industry should be nationalized.

Holy! I dont know exactly how I feel about this. Fortunately there are enough sane people out there to realize how extraordinarily stupid this is, so I guess we are safe. But wow. Dash on June 17, 2008 at 2:07 PM

There are enough sane people. Just.

Remember, the previous news that 22% of democrats were so far saturated in the DNC koolaid that they actually thought that Bush “knew” or was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Our great nation is populated with too great a number of people that are a direct threat to our own success.

And that is upsetting.

wise_man on June 17, 2008 at 2:14 PM

The left has howled for the past 5 years about Bush taking away rights and shredding the constitution under the guise of ‘terrorist-fear-mongering’.

What I fear is a country that is so dependent upon the government, that, when facing an economic crisis, begins to allow the government to take control of our natural resources.

Are we there?

cntrlfrk on June 17, 2008 at 2:29 PM

Wise-man; I have often said that 1/2 the population is insane.
We are reaching the saturation point faster than I had hoped.

tomk59 on June 17, 2008 at 2:30 PM

People need to wake up and stop bashing the oil companies for their profits. Exxon-Mobil, the largest American oil company, only controls less than 3% of the world’s currently-producing oil reserves, with most of it controlled by foreign companies, some of which are nationalized (owned by foreign governments). American oil companies can’t control the price with a 3% market share–they’re forced to pay world-market prices. The days of the Rockefeller oil barons and their monopoly have been over for decades.

UNLESS we drill off the Continental Shelf, and extract shale oil in the Rockies, then the US will have a significant market share, and can affect the market price. If we became self-sufficient, then the US would pay its own price, and not be dependent on foreign markets.

People like Romeo13 need to avoid simplistic calculations of oil company profits. Crude oil is a very complex mixture of many compounds, not all of which can be refined into gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, or home heating oil. Some of it is so heavy that it can only be used as asphalt for paving roads–it just won’t burn. Crude oil (and refined products) also contains olefins, whose value as feedstocks to make plastics far exceed their fuel value.

An oil company’s profits could be very approximately expressed as:

Volume natural gas * natural gas price
+ volume olefins * olefins price
+ volume LPG (propane and butane) * LPG price
+ volume gasoline * gasoline price
+ volume diesel fuel * diesel price
+ volume jet fuel * jet fuel price
+ volume No. 2 oil * No. 2 oil price
+ volume No. 6 oil * No. 6 oil price
+ volume asphalt * asphalt price
+ volume coke * coke price
- volume crude refined * refining costs
- volume crude * crude oil price
- volume crude * shipping cost (from each source)
- number of workers * salary
- workers’ payroll taxes
- workers’ healthcare benefits
- Federal income tax on profits
- Federal taxes on fuels (multiply by volume of each)
- state taxes (variable rate by state).

and maybe a few things I’ve left out. So, what fraction of this complex equation is due to gasoline prices? Have those kvetching about oil-company profits done THIS math?

Steve Z on June 17, 2008 at 2:30 PM

Venezuela, Canada, the U.S.A.

“Thinking men cannot be ruled.”

~ ~ Ayn Rand

It’s just begun. Our freedom, independence and liberty is corroding exponentially. Be very careful and afraid.

p.s. from discussion with someone in Austria last weekend – one gallon of gas = approx. $8.00 – imagine the taxes, if the barrel of crude costs the same all over.

Entelechy on June 17, 2008 at 2:40 PM

Supply.

Increase supply.

drjohn on June 17, 2008 at 2:53 PM

We wouldn’t have an energy “crisis” if our population wasn’t retarded.

We wouldn’t have many of our crises if our population wasn’t retarded.

We can’t solve the energy crisis, or any other crisis, if our population is retarded.

As long as the libs control the public schools, universities, media, science, the courts and the other main institutions of a society, there is not going to be a Republican/conservative revolution.

The Saul Alinsky model has to be put into operation in reverse. Otherwise, this lovely (and improbable) experiment must end.

JiangxiDad on June 17, 2008 at 2:54 PM

Regarding the last video: he said he’d look at windfall profits. He’s apparently looked — and saw nothing improper. He also said he’s against anything we do that distorts the market. I agree 150,000,000%. We have a maze of supports, incentives, and taxes that would confuse a mainframe. We should do away with the lot, and let the market do what it does best.

philwynk on June 17, 2008 at 2:58 PM

I dare say she can’t count up to her IQ…

Why not? She has enough fingers and toes…

philwynk on June 17, 2008 at 2:59 PM

I was listening to the radio on my way to work and there was talk of a new hybrid that emits only water vapor. When the president of the auto company was told that there were no recharging stations for cars like that he pointed out that there were no gas stations when Ford put the Model T on the market.

In truth it will talk conservation and alternative energy and nuclear power and more drilling to meet the energy demands of the world’s population in the future. The Chinese are just getting started on their consumption and look at where they already are.

No easy quick answers to this one.

But nationalizing oil companies is nuts. In fact something like 75% of the world’s oil production is controlled by governments and cartels right now.

Terrye on June 17, 2008 at 3:08 PM

What I can’t figure out is why oil profits are not HIGHER than they are.

Even with the 15% Fed Tax, a 10% rate of return seems pretty low.

Romeo13

It’s for two reasons.

1) American oil companies drill roughly 3% of the world’s oil, but they refine about 6%. The oil companies are thus net consumers of crude oil, and have to pay the same prices for it that the rest of the world does.

2) Oil companies are vertically integrated, and the soaring crude oil profits are offset by insanely slim margins on oil refining, oil distribution, and retail sales.

Even so, the majority of the oil companies’ profits, roughly 80%, come from the sale of crude oil. Rather than bashing the oil companies, we should count ourselves blessed that they continue to operate efficiently all the marginally profitable functions of the oil refining and distribution business. They don’t have to, and if I were in their shoes, I’d be seriously considering selling off most of the company and keeping only the oil derricks.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, “Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture.” Thanks.)

philwynk on June 17, 2008 at 3:13 PM

Note to HotAir staff: We need a ‘ding’ button, a la LGF.
comments like

thuja on June 17, 2008 at 1:36 PM

deserve to be applauded.

Well said Thuja.

rockhauler on June 17, 2008 at 3:19 PM

I should probably not post at this time because I am so upset. But I will anyway. The american people are being led down a path that will destroy America. How can I say this? It is very simple.

The big lies:
IT IS GOOD TO TAX BIG COMPANIES.
GLOBAL WARMING IS MAN MADE.
WE AS A PEOPLE IN AMERICA CAN NOT HAVE A DECENT LIFE WITHOUT HELP FROM GOVERNMENT.
THE LACK OF A DECENT ENERGY POLICY.

Taxes.
It seems to me that very few people understand who pays taxes. When the fedaral, state, or local governments tax a co., corp., or any one making a product the consumer must pay all those taxes. Taxes are just another cost of doing business. So if a taxing agent adds 100 million dollars to the cost of doing business the consumer ends up paying the 100 million dollars in tax PLUS the expected profit margin.

Man made global warming.
The main primise is that co2 causes global warming and that mankind is responsible for the increase in co2 in the atmosphere. Well folks that is a LIE. The fact is that global warming causes an increase in the co2 in the atmosphere. If you do not belive me look up any chart about co2 and global warming and you will see that co2 always lags gloabal warming. Most co2 on the earth is held in ocean waters. When the oceans heat up they releases co2 when they cool off they absorb the co2. It is as simple as a can of soda. Just go to your local store and buy a pack of soda(i like coke what is your favorite) now put a third in the refridge and one third in the pantry and on third in the sun. After a period of time open them one at a time. You will notice that the one from the refidge releases very little gas, the one from the pantry releases a noticable amount more, however the one from the sun is all most explosive in the amount of co2 that it expells.
So what am I saying? I AM SAYING THAT CO2 DOES NOT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING. The thought that mankind causes global warming is just a LIE.

Decent life:
Well folks a decent life comes down on how much I earned during my lifetime. If there where no taxes I would be wealthy. When various taxing agencys take money from people they limit the ability of the individual to make thier own choices. If I had not spent fifty percent of my income in taxes I could have done so much for my family.

I could have bought a good medical insurance for my family.
I could have invested money for the future.
I could have just saved my money in a savings account.
I could have educated my children.
I could have paid off my mortgage.
I could have bought gasoline last week.
I could have but I did not. How can i say this? Taxes control all American peoples.

Lest I digress:
The reason energy cost so much IS THE TOTAL FAILURE OF THE UNITED STATES TO DEVELOPE any Any ANY long term energy policy.

What should the u.s. do?

Just develope a policy to get more energy and at the same time make energy more affordable to the American public.

Is it possable well sure.

TomLawler on June 17, 2008 at 3:25 PM

That sounds like a misleading survey. A plurality of Democrats no doubt favor nationalizing everything. I doubt there’s anything special about the oil industry.

Blacklake on June 17, 2008 at 3:34 PM

Why don’t they nationalize beer companies while their at it.

Mike Honcho on June 17, 2008 at 3:56 PM

I tend to agree, and why not tax the “obscene profits” of Cindy Hensley McCain’s beer distribution company while we’re at it?

Buy Danish on June 17, 2008 at 11:52 AM

Were you kidding, or sarcastic, BD?

Entelechy on June 17, 2008 at 4:00 PM

Democrats have the audacity to hope that their death wish for the oil business comes true. If they can’t legislate enough tax burdens to kill the oil business, then they’ll attempt to coerce the business into the strangle hold of incompetent communists and death grip of Gorical socialism.

Marx is Dead!
Marxists are Losers.

maverick muse on June 17, 2008 at 4:04 PM

Steve Z,

You say: “Some of it is so heavy that it can only be used as asphalt for paving roads–it just won’t burn.”

Months ago I saw an add on one of the popular right-wing web sites advertising, I guess, shares in an companies seeking to harvest oil from purportedly massive central-US oil shale fields. A Google search came up with an article or two speaking negatively about this investment strategy, stating that productive oil shale fields today in Canada are far richer in oil per ton than the US shale fields. It points out, for example, that in areas where American Indians had easy access to this oil shale, cliff faces and so forth, they chose buffalo chips for fuel because chips intrinsically had more stored chemical energy and shale simply didn’t burn.

Yet the other day, I saw on this site Newt Gingrich saying that recovering oil from US oil shale is part of his strategy for reducing the price of oil.

Which is it, is the oil in US oil shale recoverable or not?

(By the way, I agree with TomLawler on June 17, 2008 at 3:25 PM, but I’m not as optimistic as he is.)

flicker on June 17, 2008 at 4:05 PM

Marx is Dead!
Marxists are Losers Winner.

maverick muse on June 17, 2008 at 4:04 PM

Entelechy on June 17, 2008 at 4:10 PM

Winners, that s/b. They sure are making inroads.

Entelechy on June 17, 2008 at 4:10 PM

And, they’ll soon have their own Messiah, the Marxist Lord of the World.

Entelechy on June 17, 2008 at 4:11 PM

PLURALITY OF DEMOCRATS are Marxists

the proof is in the pudding

It also goes to show what happens with all of the “voter registration” drives sponsored by the DNC to collect illegal aliens to incorporate them within the system in order to illegitimately legitimize their presence and allow THEM to pad alongside uberliberal populists and dead folks miraculously dictating the outcome of our elections!

maverick muse on June 17, 2008 at 4:15 PM

Were you kidding, or sarcastic, BD?

Entelechy on June 17, 2008 at 4:00 PM

Sarcasm, my dear Entelechy.

Buy Danish on June 17, 2008 at 4:18 PM

Marxists are losers!

To begin with, they have lost their minds and all ability to appreciate our Constitutional government. Marxists may steal elections, but what happens under their “leadership” is the demise of whatever country they presume to direct.

maverick muse on June 17, 2008 at 4:18 PM

If Democrats want to raise taxes, allow them to raise the taxes of Democrats only! Show by example and lead with authority over your own selves, you thieves and hypocrites!

maverick muse on June 17, 2008 at 4:21 PM

Which is it, is the oil in US oil shale recoverable or not?

flicker on June 17, 2008 at 4:05 PM

It is recoverable, we’ve learned a lot about energy since the Indians were trying to burn rocks.

cntrlfrk on June 17, 2008 at 4:30 PM

Sarcasm, my dear Entelechy.

Buy Danish on June 17, 2008 at 4:18 PM

What a relief! The world is still somewhat sane. You had me worried. I’m often able to discern it but these are not normal times. Good! Love your HA contributions. Thank you so,

Entelechy on June 17, 2008 at 4:47 PM

Truman tried to nationalize the steel industry in 1952. The Supreme Court said no.

meci on June 17, 2008 at 4:48 PM

One of the big reasons for the corruption in the UN has been nationalized oil companies. There has been no separation between oil acquisition and government policy in nations with nationalized oil companies.

In other words, there is no point in asking negotiators from Shell or Exxon to throw Israel under the bus for oil concessions. Shell and Exxon can lobby like everybody else, but can be told to go jump in a lake.

But negotiations with Fina/Elf or other state-run oil companies—well, the negotiators are essentially government employees and in the same chain of command as the folks who make foreign policy.

Sekhmet on June 17, 2008 at 4:53 PM

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2008/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/spreadsheets/statistical_review_full_report_workbook_2008.xls#'Oil Production – barrels’!A1

philwynk on June 17, 2008 at 3:13 PM

Interesting, cause the link above, if you can actualy get to it said US alone produces 8% of the worldwide oil.

Romeo13 on June 17, 2008 at 4:55 PM

Truman tried to nationalize the steel industry in 1952. The Supreme Court said no.

meci on June 17, 2008 at 4:48 PM

That was a different supreme court.

Ya wanna take any bets on the 2nd amendment opinion coming out? After Boumediene I’ll be surprised if they DON’T throw the 2nd amendment down the same hole.

rockhauler on June 17, 2008 at 4:58 PM

If Democrats want to raise taxes, allow them to raise the taxes of Democrats only! Show by example and lead with authority over your own selves, you thieves and hypocrites!

maverick muse on June 17, 2008 at 4:21 PM

Don’t hold your breath waiting for Dims to volunteer to pay more taxes. Remember when Bill Clinton wailed in public about G.W. Bush’s failure to raise taxes to finance the war in Iraq? Poor Bill wanted so badly to support the troops (he claimed), but Bush’s failure to raise taxes “prevented” Bill from doing so, and he was angry, damnit! Old Bill never explained why he didn’t go ahead and contribute some of his massive income on his own. If Billy-boy was so eager to financially support the troops, why didn’t he whip out his fat checkbook and send a 7-figure (or more) contribution to the DOD, or a military hospital, or the U.S. Treasury? Because like most Dims, he’s a hypocrite. (Another good example is that paragon of virtue Ted Kennedy, who is more than willing to tax your family’s wealth out of existence with the estate tax, while Kennedy keeps his own family’s wealth out of reach of the tax by using off-shore trusts).

AZCoyote on June 17, 2008 at 5:06 PM

Which is it, is the oil in US oil shale recoverable or not?

flicker on June 17, 2008 at 4:05 PM

The oil shales we have in the US are not nearly as good a source of hydrocarbons as the 200 billion-barrel Athabaskan tar sands in Canada. Our oil shales’ oil content is much lower and processing costs are much higher than the Canadian sands.

By the way, the greenies and the Dems are trying to shut down our rapidly growing critical imports from the huge Canadian tar sands, because of their global warming bullcrap.

The Chinese have already said that if we don’t want to pay for that tar sand oil, they do. Of course, they don’t have frigging idiots and freaks like Nancy Pelosi or Al Gore running their economy.

TexasJew on June 17, 2008 at 5:12 PM

OT, but BO is now blaming Republican tactics for us not getting Bin Laden yet.
Unbelievable.

jgapinoy on June 17, 2008 at 5:18 PM

OT, but BO is now blaming Republican tactics for us not getting Bin Laden yet.
Unbelievable.

jgapinoy on June 17, 2008 at 5:18 PM

BL is with the ants. BO will be shocked when he finds that out.

For now, he’s creating an alternate reality and the fools, with the help of the media, go for it.

Nov. will bring them a Gargantuan orgasm, or a hysterical cry. Either will not be good for this country. We’re in for a lot of trouble.

Entelechy on June 17, 2008 at 6:13 PM

Interesting, cause the link above, if you can actualy get to it said US alone produces 8% of the worldwide oil.

Romeo13 on June 17, 2008 at 4:55 PM

Same set of tables at that link say that the US provides 20% of the refinery capacity.

I don’t know, and don’t care to research, why this source has different figures than the source I used. However, they agree on the basic point I made, which was that American oil companies refine roughly twice as much crude oil as they pump out of the ground. American oil companies are, therefore, net consumers of crude oil, and have to pay the same world price of crude as everybody else. That’s one of the reasons oil companies’ profits are not higher than they are when the price of crude soars.

Capice?

philwynk on June 17, 2008 at 6:25 PM

I was watching C-span during the day today, and a democrat (I don’t recall which one, but does it really matter?) was pushing the Pelosi line about drilling is not the solution. He had a chart of the number of drilled wells in the US (I believe) vs. time, and it showed a drastic increase to today, with the question at the top of the chart “Does Increase supply reduce prices?” or something like that. But the point of the chart obviously only looked at one part of one side of the equation. Demand was totally ignored by this fine, ignorant fella. Of course the number of wells does not indicate how productive those wells are, but, hey, great spin job!

rslancer14 on June 17, 2008 at 6:33 PM

That was Bill Nelson of Florida. He tossed all common sense and basic economics out the window to spout what was good for the party, all the while with that reptilian smile of his plastered across his face.

tomk59 on June 17, 2008 at 7:00 PM

philwynk on June 17, 2008 at 6:25 PM

And today only produce 57% of the oil we produced in 1970.

Capiche?

Yes, we buy a lot of foreign oil, primarily from Mexico and Canada… who are freinds of ours (sort of), and refine it here in refineries… some of which are owned by Mexico and Venezuela (sadly enough)… unless you think they are offsetting the price of imported oil by the cheaper oil they drill and get internaly?

But then, how does that explain the totaly company owned supply chains like Citgo… why are their prices higher…

Romeo13 on June 17, 2008 at 7:08 PM

tomk59 on June 17, 2008 at 7:00 PM

While Sen. Nelson of FL may very well have used such a chart and I don’t doubt his economic illiteracy, I was watching the house side of things, as I don’t get the deuce (C-Span2)on my basic cable. It is rather shocking the ignorance displayed on a daily basis there, but I really should know better by now and not be so shocked at their collective stupidity.

rslancer14 on June 17, 2008 at 7:33 PM

Hmmmm. Shep Smith just said that Charlie Crist has changed his mind and now supports lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling off of the Florida coast.

Buy Danish on June 17, 2008 at 7:37 PM

hmmm, well it seems like mccain has flip-flopped on the windfall tax. but then i read in the comments wise_man explaining in great length how this isnt a flip-flop. but if a politician bills his campaign as the “Straight Talk Express” he shouldnt need his minions to follow behind him and spin so it sounds like he said one thing but means another. any intelligent rational person listening to his may 6th remark could only conclude he has no problem w/ a windfall tax. if that has changed he should say so. just hoping it disappears down the memory hole aint good enough. you cant trust someone who does that sort of thing.

offshore drilling. he is on record opposing that going back to the 2000 election. and it shows he has no clue about federalism when he tries to push this as a state’s decision. but he has the gall to say the feds should ban drilling in ANWR! get him a poli sci major to explain federalism and the Constitution (mccain-feingold)

chasdal on June 17, 2008 at 7:53 PM

Surprise: O’Reilly demagoging oil again. Greedy oil companies. Greedy speculators. Barf. Looking for Government to “take control.” Gee, I wonder why so many people think nationalizing oil is a good idea.

TheBigOldDog on June 17, 2008 at 8:05 PM

hmmm, well it seems like mccain has flip-flopped on the windfall tax. but then i read in the comments wise_man explaining in great length how this isnt a flip-flop.

Which comment are you talking about, chasdal?

wise_man on June 17, 2008 at 8:18 PM

If you are talking about the comment at 11:17 AM, then I am not ‘explaining a flip flop.’ Some people use the McCain quote to suggest that McCain is in bed with the liberals as to wanting the windfall profit tax. He said, ‘I don’t like obscene profits’ and ‘I’d look into it’ and then he said ‘but that’s not what bothers me.’

In other words, he doesn’t like obscene profits(never promises to do anything about it) will look into it(still not promising anything) and then says that (obscene profits) don’t bother him.

Setting the record straight =/= ‘explaining a flip flop’ that McCain never made.

wise_man on June 17, 2008 at 8:24 PM

I don’t know what everyone here is beefing about. Look at how well Pemex is benefiting Mexico. They tax away 60% of the profits (thereby providing a natural restriction on their ability to explore and/or enhance recovery, which is good because it’s Green) which pays for about 1/3 of their gov’t needs. Then they get another 1/3 from tourism, ag and industry. The last 1/3 comes from… hmmm I don’t recall right now. But the point is that nationalizing their oil industry has benefited Mexico greatly and we shouldn’t fear it just because we haven’t tried it.

Come on people, let’s be Progressive, B E Progressive. (picture cheerleaders w/ short skirts while you read that, I know I did)

TheCulturalist on June 17, 2008 at 8:53 PM

wise_man on June 17, 2008 at 8:24 PM

Good gosh. How many points are you racking up trying to obfuscate McCain’s policy stances? Did you get today’s talking points?

I thought only Democrats tried to hide who they really were until they got elected.

John McCain is for amnesty. Why try to hide it?

John McCain is for unconstitutional restrictions on free speech. Why try to hide it?

John McCain has been taken in by the global warming hoax and wants to tax the poop out of us to “fight” it. Why try to hide it?

John McCain wants to close Gitmo and bring the terrorists to the US. I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt that he’s aware of our laws, and knows that bringing the terrorists into the jurisdiction of the federal courts will give them rights under the Constitution. Thus, McCain wants to give constitutional rights to the terrorists. Why try to hide it?

His votes are a matter of public record. You can’t hide them. His statements, on obscene profits and CEO pay and forcing oil companies to give profits back and invest in alternative energy, are all a matter of public record. You can’t hide them.

Sitting on this board and yapping about lies and getting exercised at criticism of John McCain is not convincing.

Everybody on this board knows that John McCain is a liberal. Some are going to vote for him anyway, and some are not.

Deal with it.

misterpeasea on June 17, 2008 at 9:12 PM

Republicans oppose nationalizing the oil industry by a 66% to 16% margin.

What????

2 out of 3 oppose, while 1 of three support or are undecided?

If this poll is a credible representation, then 1/3rd of the GOP needs a good slap across the face.

Saltysam on June 17, 2008 at 9:39 PM

The survey found that a plurality of Democrats (37%) believe the oil industry should be nationalized. Just 32% of voters in Barack Obama’s party disagree with that approach. Republicans oppose nationalizing the oil industry by a 66% to 16% margin. Unaffiliated voters are opposed by a 47% to 33% margin…

.
That just proves that the ignorant people are clustered in the democratic party, but we pretty much knew that already.

Think_b4_speaking on June 17, 2008 at 10:05 PM

Interesting, cause the link above, if you can actualy get to it said US alone produces 8% of the worldwide oil.

Romeo13 on June 17, 2008 at 4:55 PM

.
The US is the third largest producer of oil in the world, behind Russian and Saudi (though Saudi may take the lead again, with their recent decision to up production). But, the US uses more than twice as much oil as it produces, so we import the rest, mostly from Canada, Mexico, and NOCs.

Think_b4_speaking on June 17, 2008 at 10:08 PM

wise_man,

on may 4th mccain made statements that any reasonable person would interpret to mean he was in favor of a windfall profit tax. now he is slamming obama on this subject. he has changed his position. you can parse his words to justify that he never specifically said the words “i am in favor of a windfall profit tax” and you would be correct but he did every to give the impression he was in favor of that policy. he has been slamming the business community since back when he criticized romney for working to make a profit while he was serving his country. he conveniently forgot to mention he then married a sugarmama so he doesnt have to have a real job.

as i stated before, the straight talk express shouldnt need to have its statements and comments explained. they should be easily undertandable the first time around.

but thats what you get when you support the ny times endorsed candidate.

chasdal on June 17, 2008 at 11:09 PM

Good gosh. How many points are you racking up trying to obfuscate McCain’s policy stances? Did you get today’s talking points?

misterpeasea on June 17, 2008 at 9:12 PM

you know i had forgotten all about that little scam!! at least it explains why wise_man and terrye continue to post so positively on mccain. even on issues where they have been thoroughly thrashed.

chasdal on June 17, 2008 at 11:16 PM

As a Wall Street trading speculator and Executive Professor of Finance reminded Americans, the WINDFALL PROFITS TAX is a tax on profits from a non-invested source. If an oil company were to somehow gain profits from the price of cotton, that would be a windfall upon which the tax would apply. Taxing oil companies on their profits from producing the oil that they are completely invested in is NOT WINDFALL PROFITS, and to do so is piracy.

maverick muse on June 18, 2008 at 7:23 AM

As per McCain, it is given that he is as maleable on domestic issues as Obama. The difference is obvious, however. Obama will absolutely do nothing to help and everything to hurt conservative issues. McCain, on the other hand, can be coerced in line with conservatives, even if only temporarily, at least long enough to sign on the dotted line. And internationally, McCain will not be the maleable tool in Ahmedinajad’s hand or play any terrorist dictator’s fool that Obama is.

maverick muse on June 18, 2008 at 7:29 AM

Isnt the oil industry pretty much nationalized now? In a free America, the oil people could go where the oil is and get it. In the America we have now, the government tells the oil industry where they CANT drill, and heavily penalizes the industry with “windfall” obscene profits taxes when business is good. So what would be the final step to nationalization?
I saw Robert F. Kennedy Jr on Fox this morning debating Mike Gallagher about drilling for oil. Junior parroted the dem talking point – “We cant drill our way out of this.” I just now heard Obma say the same thing. All the socialist democrats are saying the same thing. Gallagher took him to the woodshed. Kennedy just sat there with that stupid look on his face not knowing what to say next, and he was clearly unhappy. If looks could kill they would have been taking Gallagher out of there feet first. After all, Junior said that anybody who denied global warming should be tried for treason and jailed, and there was Mike soundly condemning GW. It was great.
Can anybody tell me why Junior talks like his stomach hurts?

abcurtis on June 18, 2008 at 8:14 AM

“If that plan sounds familiar, it’s because that was President Carter’s big idea, too. …I’m all for recycling, but it’s better applied to paper and plastic than to the failed policies of the 1970s,” the Republican presidential contender said in excerpts of a speech planned for Tuesday evening…

Now that’s funny – I dont care who you are. And true too.

abcurtis on June 18, 2008 at 8:17 AM

I was listening to the radio on my way to work and there was talk of a new hybrid that emits only water vapor. When the president of the auto company was told that there were no recharging stations for cars like that he pointed out that there were no gas stations when Ford put the Model T on the market.

I heard about this on Glenn Beck last night. It’s from a Japanese auto maker, Toyota, I think. Anyway, they are only going to make 200 of them, they will only be leased, and they will only be available in Cali because they have some filling stations there. The price of the car is somewhere around 100K. That’s why they are being leased.

abcurtis on June 18, 2008 at 8:23 AM

But if there is no shortage, then why have prices gone up so high if its ONLY supply and demand driving prices…

I don’t follow the logic of your question. The fact that supply and demand determine a price doesn’t place any inherent restriction on what the price can be. If quantity demanded exceeds quantity supplied at the going price, the price is bid up until it reaches a market-clearing level. This is “day 1″ stuff.

Also, cost is reflected in the supply curve. The supply curve is a cost curve — in fact, it’s the part of the marginal cost curve lying above the average variable cost curve.

DrSteve on June 18, 2008 at 8:29 AM

Hurrah for the lift on the loser ban on US free enterprise.

Obama equating the oil industry with the US population is rich as he calls us evil.

maverick muse on June 18, 2008 at 8:48 AM

misterpeasea on June 17, 2008 at 9:12 PM

So you never explained it before, are you a ‘conservative’ who hates McCain so much that you aren’t going to vote for him, and hope everyone else doesn’t due to your persuasion by constant trash talking, lies and half-truths about him, allowing Obama to win because more people will end up voting for him ..

or

are you a liberal posing as a conservative on a conservative site who wants the same thing, less people to vote for McCain because all of your trash talk, lies and half-truths about McCain here on an hourly bases, while you and much more people vote for Obama?

So which one is it?

wise_man on June 18, 2008 at 9:01 AM

you know i had forgotten all about that little scam!! at least it explains why wise_man and terrye continue to post so positively on mccain. even on issues where they have been thoroughly thrashed.
chasdal on June 17, 2008 at 11:16 PM

I find it disgusting to see when so called ‘conservatives’ use the same tactics on McCain that they used on Bush for the last 7 years. I’m not posting passionately ‘for’ McCain, but more accurately, against lying sacks of sh*t who come here with one goal, to make sure they convince enough real conservatives to not vote for the winner of the republican primaries and by default, help to elect Barack Obama.

And the only thing that will be so thoroughly thrashed is this nation, if Obama is elected.

wise_man on June 18, 2008 at 9:09 AM

The price at the pump is marginally dictated by the fluctuations in the price per barrel of light sweet crude oil. The real price at the pump is predominately determined by the supply control that the people have handed to the refineries.

Our elected officials have been coalesced to support umpteen different fuel formulas. Environmental advocates have supported these fuel formulas. Politicians have supported them. Auto makers have supported them. Heck, even the refineries supported them. Does that make any sense? Why would industrial forces SUPPORT regulation of their industry?

The refineries DO NOT lobby to lift the number of fuel formulas they are obligated to produce by law. They hardly lifted a hair to oppose them.

This is where our problem lies. We have given industry the supply control mechanism they need to dictate prices at the pump. The other catalyst is the flat and shrinking number of oil refineries. Do you know how costly it is to ship these refined fuel formulas from Venezuela? Do you know how costly it is to ship these refined fuel formulas from Nigeria? We do import refined gasoline that has already met the various fuel formula standards passed by government throughout the states.

The speculators are making bets in the market that NONE of these policies is going to change. They’re right. The changes that WILL be made are going to make $140 per barrel oil look like a bargain.

Be prepared for an oil price shock. It’s about to rocket in price and subsequently crash.

gabriel sutherland on June 18, 2008 at 11:42 AM

abcurtis: Well, RFK Jr. is a fool most of the time, but he’s right that we cannot drill our way out of this problem. Look at what is happening around you.

Exxon buys Mobil.
Chevron buys Texaco.
BP buys Amoco.

The industry has consolidated itself. Anything else followed suit? Why yes.

The Chicago Mercantile Exchange buys the Chicago Board of Trade. CME group is formed.
NYMEX buys stake in Dubai Oil exchange.
CME Group buys NYMEX.

The US Federal Trade Commission approved every single one of these mergers and acquisitions.

The industry doesn’t want to be nationalized. I doubt they think that’s right around the corner. But they are “nationalizing” themselves so to speak.

gabriel sutherland on June 18, 2008 at 11:50 AM

Nationalize the oil companies here in the U.S., and very simply, they could leave. Oil companies have no obligation to bring us oil…NONE WHATSOEVER! Government meddling has caused this country much grief all ready. Nationalization/socialization would only add more to our grief!

byteshredder on June 18, 2008 at 3:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2