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
Share on Facebook | regular view
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: A reader e-mails to say that the video above is from May 6, not May 14. My mistake.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















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 Next »
Speaks volumes about the state of education in this country when supposed American citizens advocate socialist policy.
DerKrieger on June 17, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Sure. I see no problem in having the same government who brought us FEMA and the IRS completely managing our energy systems.
Who wouldn’t want an overpaid, unionized guv’ment clerk deciding where we should drill for oil, using nothing but a dog-eared atlas and a highlighter pen?
Bishop on June 17, 2008 at 10:55 AM
I really don’t think this is something to worry about. The government simply has no authority to nationalize a private company. Any legislation attempting to do so would be purely unConstitutional.
It’s fun to debate but it’s not on my list of things to worry about.
Maxx on June 17, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Are we seeing the rise of Hugo Hussein Obama? Or Barack Chavez?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 17, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Well, other nations are already preparing to take our oil:
From today’s New York Sun
Cuba has been leasing its on- and offshore mineral rights in recent years. The takers have included state-owned companies from China, Vietnam, India, Malaysia, and Norway.
In America’s territorial waters in the Gulf of Mexico, it is a British company that holds the most acres of mineral rights. According to numbers supplied by the Department of the Interior, a subsidiary of BP holds more than 3.2 million acres in leases in the gulf.
obladioblada on June 17, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Have you seen the rulings from SCOTUS recently?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 17, 2008 at 10:59 AM
We all must start practicing our goose-stepping.
Grafted on June 17, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Our Comrades on the left don’t have a clue. Ayn Rand where are you?
HotJavaJack on June 17, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Oh that silly old thing? Liberals have no respect for the Constitution and will not allow it to get in their way.
Even if they fail to act contrary to the Constitution, and hopefully they will, it shows they will try to act contrary to it, and that is a dangerous enough snowball perched atop the hill for my liking.
Grafted on June 17, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Seems to be working well, citizen.
BacaDog on June 17, 2008 at 11:01 AM
I dare say that at least 50% of those in favor couldn’t name both of their US senators.
Akzed on June 17, 2008 at 11:02 AM
It’s a short step from McCain’s desire to punish “obscene profits” and force oil companies to invest in alternative energy and limit what people can earn to nationalizing the industry.
misterpeasea on June 17, 2008 at 11:03 AM
You don’t think this is an unintended outcome of the Left’s stranglehold on secondary education and the university system, do you?
Lehuster on June 17, 2008 at 11:07 AM
I dare say that Maxine Waters couldn’t name both of her US senators.
Akzed on June 17, 2008 at 11:12 AM
If the choice is between nationalisation (shudder) and outrageous lobbying and ahem ‘incentives’ then I’ll take the latter.
Socialism is a bankrupt case ideology – I blame the media (natch) for not covering european politics a little more. The failures of socialism are evident in Europe every day not least in that the european countries are now failing to breed enough to sustain their indigenous populations, pace Steyn.
Ares on June 17, 2008 at 11:13 AM
If nationalization is in the air, I expect sales of trucks and fertilizer to rise.
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 11:13 AM
I dare say she can’t count up to her IQ
LimeyGeek on June 17, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Easy. He’s shameless.
Bugler on June 17, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Come and get it (click)..
TexasJew on June 17, 2008 at 11:15 AM
That sure is a flappy shirt he has on.
Rhinoboy on June 17, 2008 at 11:15 AM
You do have a point there.
Maxx on June 17, 2008 at 11:16 AM
…. sigh …..
MCCAIN: “Um, I don’t like obscene profits being made anywhere–and I’d be glad to look not just at the windfall profits tax–that’s not what bothers me–but we should look at any incentives that we are giving to people, that or industries or corporations that are distorting the market.”
He said:
#1 I don’t like obscene profits.
#2 I’d be glad to look at it.
#3 That’s not what bothers me.
#4 We should look at incentives being given to corporations.
… and now let’s connect the dots.
The so called “obscene profits” don’t bother me. I’d rather look into giveaway incentives to corporations that don’t need it or are making the industry worse by distorting the market.
Yep, that bastard McCain, huh Allah Pundit?
wise_man on June 17, 2008 at 11:17 AM
When McImbecile sees this poll, he will be for socializing the oil industry, too.
Valiant on June 17, 2008 at 11:17 AM
With the current make-up of American citizens, I don’t think enough people care about keeping the Constitution. And I think that the Dems are well aware of this.
OldEnglish on June 17, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Well that is what happens when we have a liberal president for 8 years aka Bush. If we actually had a Republican president for 8 years this poll about Nationalizing our oil would be laugh at. Very few people would support nationalizing the oil. That is one of the reason why I would not vote for McCain. If people think like this after 8 years of Bush, what will people think after 8 years of McCain?? It scares me to even think about it.
BroncosRock on June 17, 2008 at 11:18 AM
I think the ruling on the “common good” takes care of that. If it is for the “common good”, then it is constitutional, maybe mandatory. According to some.
Glad you don’t have to worry about it, take a look at some of the recent court decisions and sleep tight.
And from this scary website:
These folks are serious…
right2bright on June 17, 2008 at 11:18 AM
These two quotes are priceless and reveal how dumb Obama and the environmental movement believe all of us to be.
I don’t recall oil derricks sprouting up all across the United States in the past 8 years much less the past 30 years. We’ve pretty much put a halt to any oil exploration and exploitation mostly because of Democrats and their environmentalist friends. As a result, we produce less oil than we did 30 years.
If anything, it is the Dems policies that have failed because we have higher gas and energy prices because we haven’t been exploring or drilling.
Queasy on June 17, 2008 at 11:18 AM
I think this may be an example of what McCain does when he’s wrong on an issue, doesn’t want to admit it, but has to change courses somehow. He makes believe he didn’t say/do it.
It’s not shameless, it’s downright childish and immature. He should have outgrown that silly behavior at least 40 years ago.
JiangxiDad on June 17, 2008 at 11:21 AM
The sad thing is that many Americans think we beat the Soviet Union because we are a democracy. WRONG! We beat the Soviet Union because we have a capitalistic society.
In a marxist socialist society, the state owns everything and determines what you do, get, have regardless of what you want. That is not freedom. It will be time to overthrow the government if they nationalize the Oil Companies. Democracy is a terrible form of government if it evolves into socialism. I don’t particularly care how we get at picking the people in DC as long as I live in a capitalistic society. If I want socialism, I’ll move to Cuba.
ThackerAgency on June 17, 2008 at 11:25 AM
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.
Oil was at about $30 a barrel in 2000, and oil companies were making some money…
Now… the COST associated with pulling that oil up should not have increased except for inflationary forces… so with oil at $130 a barrel, the PROFIT from that oil has increased exponentialy… ie… it still costs about the same to recover the oil, but they make HUGELY more profit from each barrel.
Now, oil companies sell futures on the commodity market, which are bought by speculators. This puts money in the hands of oil companies before they have to deliver the oil, which helps operating expenses.
BUT oil used by companies for internal consumption and gas production never goes on that market… it acts as a brake to the commodities market. There are also long term delivery contracts which are in place which never hit the commodity market…. so why is that market so crazed?
Its my suspicion that someone with LOTS of money, who can afford to gamble, it manipulating the market.
I believe we are in the first volleys of ECONOMIC warfare from the Islamic nations…. as BinLaden wrote about in his books… (which is why they hit the World Trade Center, it was an ECONOMIC target).
Romeo13 on June 17, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Disgusting, but probably true.
Honestly, these numbers aren’t the least bit surprising.
29% favor nationalizing
47% don’t favor nationalizing
24% don’t know what it means
Given the fact that the Dem Party hasn’t had to drop it’s Marxist policies even after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviets, and the Chinese becoming nominally capitalist why is anyone surprised at these results? Isn’t nationalizing healthcare a primary plank of the Democratic Party?
Here’s the real exit question: Why is AP surprised at these numbers? I doubt they’ve changed in 40 years.
The Apologist on June 17, 2008 at 11:26 AM
I’ve said before that if Obama loses, the Dems will not run a closet socialist again. They will run as open socialists as we are on the verge of having a population gullible enough or senseless enough to think that is cool.
JiangxiDad on June 17, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Try again, moron:
“Although the GOP presidential candidate didn’t address the question of raising taxes on oil companies, he said the companies “absolutely” should return some profits to consumers. “And they should be embarking on research and development that will pay off in reducing our dependence on foreign oil,” he said.
“The point is, oil companies have got to be more participatory in alternate energy, in sharing their profits in a variety of ways, and there is very strong and justifiable emotion about their profits,” McCain said.”
——————-
“I am very angry, frankly, at the oil companies not only because of the obscene profits they’ve made but at their failure to invest in alternate energy to help us eliminate our dependence on foreign oil,” the senator said. “They’re making huge profits and that happens, but not to say, ‘We’re in this so we can over time eliminate America’s dependence on foreign oil,’ I think is an abrogation of their responsibilities as citizens.”
misterpeasea on June 17, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Shock of all shocks he’s a politician.
Brat on June 17, 2008 at 11:28 AM
In my opinion…. this is NOT bigger new at all. This is just another goofy poll that may or may not be accurate and even if it is accurate it means little to nothing.
McCain saying he has changed his mind on off shore drillin’ however is BIG NEWS, no matter how many caveats he states along with it. It shows a change of heart that is VERY IMPORTANT in this election cycle with gas at over four bucks a gallon.
It would have been much better to give us a post on that topic so we could have strongly expressed our support for this McCain reversal, no matter how imperfect his statement.
Maxx on June 17, 2008 at 11:28 AM
McCain Seeks to End Offshore Drilling Ban
By Michael D. Shear and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, June 17, 2008; A01
Sen. John McCain called yesterday for an end to the federal ban on offshore oil drilling, offering an aggressive response to high gasoline prices and immediately drawing the ire of environmental groups that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has courted for months.
The move is aimed at easing voter anger over rising energy prices by freeing states to open vast stretches of the country’s coastline to oil exploration. In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, nearly 80 percent said soaring prices at the pump are causing them financial hardship, the highest in surveys this decade.
“We must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil,” McCain told reporters yesterday. In a speech today, he plans to add that “we have untapped oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. . . . It is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions.”
McCain’s announcement is a reversal of the position he took in his 2000 presidential campaign and a break with environmental activists, even as he attempts to win the support of independents and moderate Democrats. Since becoming the presumptive GOP nominee in March, McCain has presented himself as a friend of the environment by touting his plans to combat global warming and his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in the Everglades.
Representatives of several environmental groups criticized him for backing an idea they said would endanger the nation’s most environmentally sensitive waters.
“It’s disappointing that Senator McCain is clinging to the failed energy policies of the past,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, legislative director for the League of Conservation Voters.
Sierra Club political director Cathy Duvall said McCain “is using the environment as a way to portray himself as being different from George Bush. But the reality is that he isn’t.” The group began running radio commercials yesterday that criticize McCain’s environmental record in the battleground state of Ohio.
Democratic Sen. Barack Obama joined the criticism, calling the idea of lifting the ban the wrong answer to out-of-control energy prices. “John McCain’s plan to simply drill our way out of our energy crisis is the same misguided approach backed by President Bush that has failed our families for too long and only serves to benefit the big oil companies,” Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan said.
Energy policy — led by the spike in gas prices — is now a top-tier issue in the campaign, forcing both candidates to shift their attention from other domestic issues and foreign affairs. Spot prices for a barrel of crude oil briefly hit an all-time high yesterday, flirting with $140 a barrel before settling back to a bit less than $134.
In the Post-ABC poll, conducted Thursday through Sunday, about half of those surveyed called high gas prices a serious burden, while the issue emerged for the first time during the campaign as a top concern for voters. Obama held double-digit leads over McCain as the candidate more trusted to deal with gasoline prices and energy policy.
While both candidates have spoken about the need to shift to cleaner energy sources, they have proposed different ways to do so.
McCain backs federal subsidies for building more nuclear power plants, which he considers the best way to reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. He plans to begin outlining his energy proposals in the first of three major speeches today in Houston. Aides said the centerpiece of the speech will be the proposal to lift the ban on drilling, but McCain will also have harsh words for market speculators who are driving up the cost of oil.
“Investigation is underway to root out this kind of reckless wagering, unrelated to any kind of productive commerce, because it can distort the market, drive prices beyond rational limits, and put the investments and pensions of millions of Americans at risk,” he will say in the speech, according to excerpts the campaign provided yesterday.
Obama backs using money raised through an auction of greenhouse-gas emissions credits to bolster research and development projects, while imposing requirements on how much renewable energy public utilities would have to buy.
Yesterday in the down-at-the-heels manufacturing city of Flint, Mich., Obama said that a new energy policy must be part of government efforts to revive the economy.
“Our dependence on foreign oil strains family budgets and it saps our economy. Oil money pays for the bombs going off from Baghdad to Beirut, and the bombast of dictators from Caracas to Tehran,” Obama said. “Our nation will not be secure unless we take that leverage away, and our planet will not be safe unless we move decisively toward a clean energy future.”
McCain’s call for an end to the coastal oil drilling ban is at odds with his oft-stated view that drilling should remain off-limits in sensitive areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Asked by reporters about those places, McCain said yesterday that he still thinks the refuge is a “pristine” area and opposes drilling there.
The senator’s push to end the ban is sure to annoy two key Republican allies — California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist — both of whom oppose drilling off their states’ coastlines.
Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear noted the governor’s overall support for McCain’s candidacy but said: “There are things that he and the senator will agree on, and things they won’t agree on.” Crist said in a statement: “It has become increasingly clear that we must be pragmatic in protecting both our beaches and our economy. We look forward to the dialogue as we move forward to protect both our environment and our country’s economic interests.”
Congress created a moratorium on new drilling off the coast in 1981, and every president since then has extended it.
While McCain has traditionally sided with environmentalists on climate change, he has a mixed voting record on oil drilling and support for renewable energy.
Staff writers Christopher Twarowski, Anne E. Kornblut and Steven Mufson contributed to this report.
Guess you wouldn’t see this here in the “Hot Anti-McCain Air”
LtE126 on June 17, 2008 at 11:31 AM
The Rasmussen poll to which Allah linked shows a massive shift in the American public when faced with $4/gallon gasoline: 67% favor offshore drilling, including 57% of Democrats and 60% of Independents. If McCain is looking for crossover votes, here they are. Offshore drilling could win this election for him, even if it is a flip-flop.
If 57% of Democrats favor offshore drilling, the Democrats in Congress who oppose drilling are out of touch with their base on this issue. This could be a huge wedge issue for Republican members of Congress and challengers for House seats, because even if McCain is elected President, he would need Congressional authorization to lift the drilling ban.
Steve Z on June 17, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Well on the flip side maybe they will legalize drugs, because heaven help us if the Messiah gets elected with his apostles in control of congress, we will certainly need them.
Just A Grunt on June 17, 2008 at 11:33 AM
How is this a big deal? He doesn’t want to drill off-shore, he just wants to shift the blame for the lack of off-shore drilling from the feds to the states.
misterpeasea on June 17, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Very probably true, except I doubt it’s Muslim nations. More likely individuals and if there is state involvement it’s likely Russian. This is actually hurting OPEC and they’re kind of freaked out about it. They don’t want the price this high. I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out Soros has his hands on this too. The first place I’d look for indications of this stuff would be the new Dubai exchange market. It opened less than a year before you saw massive jumps in price.
The Apologist on June 17, 2008 at 11:37 AM
This is how they will attempt it, anyway. They will argue that extreme fuel prices are a burden to all, and therefore, it is the role of government to step in.
They’ll take the snippet from the Preamble to the Constitution to justify taking control. I would not put it past the liberals. This is how they have argue for so-called “reforms” in the past.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 17, 2008 at 11:37 AM
right2bright on June 17, 2008 at 11:18 AM
The phrase “common good” never appears in the Constitution. Property rights do appear, even though the Supreme Court thinks local governments should be able to force you to sell in order to increase tax revenue. Nevertheless, government still has to buy the property, they still can’t just nationalize it.
That’s not to sat that if Obama and his fellow commie Democrats have their way that that won’t change.
Maxx on June 17, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Nope. Around 7.6 percent of revenue.
DrSteve on June 17, 2008 at 11:38 AM
That’s been my speculation all along. He knows for the liberals to take control of this country, the economy will have to be ruined so that more people will become dependent on government. Remember what he did to the UK with regard to speculation of the British pound?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 17, 2008 at 11:39 AM
LOL! misterpeasea called me a moron. Typical.
When McCain was quoted as saying “absolutely”
… where is the rest of his quote? The (”objective journalist” hee hee hee) paraphrased the rest of his comments. I don’t trust him to tell the truth, and I don’t trust you either.
as well as ‘Although the GOP presidential candidate didn’t address the question of raising taxes on oil companies,’ … which means that until he (if ever) does, then kindly don’t attempt to put words in his mouth that he never said.
And the second quote? He doesn’t say he’s going to enact anything. Even george W Bush talks about the need for companies to develop alternate energy to help us eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.
Wow. And you probably thought you had a smart comeback to my comment, and you called me a moron, too.
LOL misterpeasea! You’re a laugh a minute.
wise_man on June 17, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Well, maybe you are right, but unfortuntly we don’t have a post on that topic so I guess we can’t even discuss it.
Maxx on June 17, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Read this about Rep. Peterson’s latest efforts to end the moratorium on offshore drilling, and call your Congressmen today!
We can make this happen, folks!
Buy Danish on June 17, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Unfortunately, no.
wise_man on June 17, 2008 at 11:40 AM
The scary thing is only 47% oppose NATIONALIZATION. What kind of IDIOTS are we turning out of our EDUCATION SYSTEM???In the 70s I used to listen to PAUL HARVEY on my way to work, or at work when I started early. One of the best lines I heard at the time was during the OIL EMBARGO. There were questions of the FED taking over the oil business for NATIONAL SECURITY. Mr. HARVEY’S comment went something like this… If the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT took over the BEER INDUSTRY, a 6 pak would cost $18.00. Now, perspective, that was when you could buy a 6 pak of beer in a supermarket for less than a BUCK…
pueblo1032 on June 17, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Personally, I don’t think McCain has a clue on anything except military issues. The more I see and hear of/from him, the more I believe he’s actually pretty dumb. He’s just been hiding behind that Maverick facade and his wife’s money for the past 26 years.
I think he’s flapping in the wind.
BigD on June 17, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Eliminate the Federal obstacle and then move on to state obstacles. You’ll never move the states if the Feds are standing in the way. It makes the argument moot.
The Apologist on June 17, 2008 at 11:41 AM
I’m not worried about the fact that a plurality of Democrats seem to favor nationalization of the nation’s oil resources. A plurality of Democrats are stupid parasitic bastards, in any case. But I digress..
Nationalization of the oil companies and oil reserves seems to ignore the fact that royalty interests in this country are generally owned by many millions of individuals and that these folks tend to live in states like Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Kansas, Montana and North Dakota.
Another problem is the fact that the few oil-knowledgeable people who work for the government tend to be second-raters in the USGS and assorted compartments in the Energy and Interior Departments, who would have problems running an ant farm.
Another, and probably most important issue would be the truly suicidal nature of trying to physically steal these people’s 100+-year-old deeded and inherited property and critical lifelong income sources in broad daylight. You can fill in the blanks. Just look at the geography.. 3 guns per household.
So I’m not worried. Not in the least..
TexasJew on June 17, 2008 at 11:42 AM
McCain needs to clean up his message and quit trying to ride the fence with the nature boys – they’re all voting for Obama anyway. If they can put their bongs down long enough.
Obama’s position is clear. It’s actually to the left of Carter’s “malaise” plan. Carter wanted to loot the oil companies to pay for government programs for the development of new energy sources. Obama wants to just hand the money over to the poor to spend.
Obama:
Carter:
forest on June 17, 2008 at 11:43 AM
RE: a minority of democrats openly oppose nationalization of the oil industry.
That has been the problem all along. A significant number of democrats are now Marxist either by choice or by ignorance.
RE: why are oil profits NOT higher than they are.
Exxon is getting out of the retail market for exactly that reason. At the retail level, profits are hard to make because retail consumers curtail their purchases as price rises. Someone once said (more or less) that you have to be an optimist to be a capitalist because you have to buy something now thinking that you can resell it later, at a profit. Without optimism, you don’t get in the game.
rockhauler on June 17, 2008 at 11:43 AM
These are not “Democrats”, these are communists and the Republic is facing very dangerous times.
rplat on June 17, 2008 at 11:43 AM
This is collosally stupid, of course.
Democratic voters are a viciously envious bunch. In tough times they enjoy seeing companies and well-off people punished. They do not care nor do they wish to consider who is furnishing the jobs to the American people and who might be able to grow out of those tough times.
They care not who is paying the Treasury.
“Off with their heads!”
drjohn on June 17, 2008 at 11:45 AM
geeze fool. . .
learn how to summarize and link. . . .
rockhauler on June 17, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Maybe you should actually read the whole post, and not just a summary, rockhauler.
wise_man on June 17, 2008 at 11:49 AM
I called McCain’s HQ to bitch when I heard Rush replay his “obscene profits” speech. The 20 something that answered the phone came back at me with DNC talking points, “it will take 10 years for drilling to make any difference”. I wasn’t in the mood. I lost it a bit.
It’s because of my interest in the issue that I couldn’t care less whether his new position contradicts past statements. I’d bet he got muchas llamadas from conservatives blasting his looney anti-oil diatribe. I’m impressed he’s pivoted this quickly. That’s what a politician is supposed to do. I’ve been able to live with his ANWR position because of his pro-nuclear stance. The facts are that he’s way more right than wrong. Aggressive nuclear expansion is the keystone to breaking free of Mideast oil.
If his upcoming energy speeches have the sense to call for opening the shale oil lands then I’ll smile through all the Global Warming takes he wants to toss in to keep the brainwashed college kids interested.
rcl on June 17, 2008 at 11:51 AM
“War for oil” would suddenly have a brand new meaning if all the oil companies were under the control of the government…
Seixon on June 17, 2008 at 11:51 AM
You know he could tie this to nationalization of all stripes, including health care which is my biggest concern. This is an excellent opportunity for McCain to run a campaign as economics primer like Ronny Raygun did. He’ll need coaching, but I think he could not just win, but convert a lot of independents permanently on this stuff. The economy and Iraq could actually work very strongly in his favor this year if he plays it right.
This is a teachable moment. Americans are looking for answers and he could get out there and aggresively provide them. He should ask his wife how her company works for starters.
The Apologist on June 17, 2008 at 11:51 AM
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
It speaks volumes in that the left has a strangle hold on the education system and knows how to use it to promote their cause.
jmarcure on June 17, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Why should the oil companies invest in bullshit alternative energy scams?
They’re OIL companies!
Why doesn’t McCain’s wife stop shoveling money over to her superannuated flyboy husband and invest in these crappy little money pits and stock scams?
Is she abrogating her responsibility as a wealthy citizen, especially one with no actual discernable job?
TexasJew on June 17, 2008 at 11:54 AM
perhaps I did, fool
Perhaps you should learn something about copyright and fair use.
rockhauler on June 17, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Exactly, and if they did successfully invest in alternative energy they would then be accused of having a monopoly.
Buy Danish on June 17, 2008 at 12:02 PM
hmm
First 100 days of the Obama abberation:
1) Institute national health care. Outlaw all private health insurance.
2) Nationalize Energy. (Not just oil companies, all of it)
3) Reinstitute the Fairness doctrine. Expand to cover the internet.
4) Nationalize the telecommunications industry including Internet Service Providers
5) outlaw IRA’s and 401K accounts. Seize the assets and put them into the health and social security systems.
6) Increase all taxation levels.
On day 101
Arrest Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Allahpundit etc for violations of the Fariness doctrine.
On day 220 Outlaw all private ownership of firearms. Deploy military with BATFE to go house to house as needed to confiscate illegal weapons. (Similar to what happened in New Orleans)
On day 500 announce that the midterm elections are being cancelled due the national emergency.
Yeah, it’s a bit extreme, but how many of you think that some of the Obama people aren’t thinking about at least one of these items?
evilned on June 17, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Sorry, I don’t buy these numbers…
Saying they have a 7.6% profit on revenue would mean that their COSTS, many of which are fixed, have increased at the same pace as the price rise.
Most of the Wells are already drilled, then you have refineing (oil companies OWN these, internal refining costs are static), and transportation costs (which have gone up, but as a percentage of overall costs does not equate to the extra revenue oil companies HAVE to be making).
Remember, that most costs are a set amount, not a percentage of overall production costs… if you were making 3-4% profit before, on a $30 product (basicly a dollar a barrel profit), and your product is now selling for $130…. with only a minimal rise in production costs, your net profit would not be $101 a barrel, and profits percentages NOT be %7.6.
Someone is playing with the books…
Romeo13 on June 17, 2008 at 12:08 PM
At this time I would like to point out that I voted for Fred Thompson.
/ Just flexing a little moral superiority and seizing the high ground
Draft Fred!
Just A Grunt on June 17, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Hey Mav, how ’bout lookin’ in on those corn subsidies? Hm? Other than the weather, what’s been driving up the price of corn? Hm?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 17, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Well, he would have a
liberalradical SCOTUS behind him to put down any challenges.Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 17, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Maxx, McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional. Yet also the law of the land. The recent SCOTUS ruling that grants US constitutional rights to enemy combatants captured on the battle field is unconstitutional. Yet now law of the land. How? What are the Dems attempting to do to the healthcare industry? Answer: Socialize it. According to you, that too is unconstitutional but look at them march gleefully towards wrapping their grubby government hands around that in the name of fairness. Still not worried? Why worry right? The Healthcare industry is only 1/7th of our economy. I wonder what percentage of our economy is represented by the energy industry? Not worried still? Of course, we have those fine people in the robes to make sure nothing unconstitutional happens. Just like they were there for us to prevent the government from abusing its power of eminent domain. And why worry about government control over free speech? Because at least we have those fine SCOTUS judges standing between the Dem controlled congress and the fairness doctrine. Right? Nahhh. Nothing to worry about, just keep whistling past the graveyard Maxx.
Zetterson on June 17, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Proof,
Plurality of Democrats should be exiled to Venezuela.
franksalterego on June 17, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Grrrr… didn’t preview…
What I meant is that if costs remained static then your profit WOULD be $101 a barrel…
Face it, refining costs, and transportation costs have NOT risen fast enought to eat up the rest of that $100 a barrel profit… the only Percentage fixed cost of production are FEDERAL Taxes, and the oil lease costs (if its government land).
Romeo13 on June 17, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Yep, and the townhall debates will reinforce that, to the discomfort of all waiting in tingly anticipation of a TKO.
a capella on June 17, 2008 at 12:26 PM
If you’re going to say something like that you need to back it up. You think there aren’t significant variable costs in what is essentially a chemical processing industry?
I agree that the vertical integration of the industry makes it easier to affect profit numbers through transfer pricing, but not as easy as you’d think.
DrSteve on June 17, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Windfall profits can be defined as taxes. It does not apply to Oil Companies.
Kini on June 17, 2008 at 12:48 PM
I’m trying to simplfy the arguement a bit… it is very complicated. Key is that this is OIL we’re talking about. Its not been processed into gas yet. There is some processing involved, and of course transportation costs… but the primary and major element is what is pumped out of the ground.
So, if it cost $29 to process this oil and get it to market 5 years ago (they WERE making some profit), I can’t see how that Cost could essentialy tripled in a time when inflation was fairly low, without some other internal American industry reaping the profits.
And if you look at just this last YEARS increase in price, it becomes even more apparent that somthing else, besides the cost of production is raising prices…
People say its supply and demand, and yet there are no oil shortages here in America, and the riots overseas are not due to lack of availability, but due to PRICE.
Romeo13 on June 17, 2008 at 12:51 PM
“Windfall profits Tax”, I remember it well. Jimmy Carter pushed it through in 1980 to:
• Punish those pesky oil companies for making too much money.
• To bring more taxpayer money into the treasury so the dems could finance more pork programs.
Here’s what was accomplished:
• Domestic oil production was reduced.
• The tax had been projected to bring in $393 billion. The Congressional Research Service later determined that the actual revenue from the tax was $80 billion.
Today, the talk about another “windfall profits” tax brings back memories – bad ones.
I was writing software for independent oil operators and producers back then. Yes, these companies were generating lots of money, all had their own planes and really nice offices. They were small businesses with anywhere from 5 employees up to 20 or so. After the “windfall profits” tax, most went out of business and rigs that were no longer pumping oil collected rust. The tax practically killed the oil business in Texas – it did kill the small oil businesses.
A little known fact about those “small” operators is that they had investors (some had hundreds, some had thousands) that benefited from the oil revenue. One of the main activities performed by accounting departments for those firms was “Royalties Payable” which cut monthly checks for those investors who put up money to drill in hopes of hitting a producing well.
So, the result of the previous windfall profits tax was that hundreds of thousands of investors (not all rich oil barons) lost money, U.S. oil production went down, prices went up, and the tax didn’t come close to generating the revenue that was projected. And the democrats want another “failed policy of the past”?
Garnet92 on June 17, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Spinny-spin-spin. You can try to parse all you want, but it isn’t the least bit convincing. Moron.
misterpeasea on June 17, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Zetterson on June 17, 2008 at 12:21 PM
All good and valid points, but I guess what I’m saying is all those things you mentioned and more, have completely occupied my top ten list of things to worry about.
Oil companies getting nationalized is still a remote concern. Especially when this poll only states that a plurality of Democrats support it. I wouldn’t expect anything else from Democrats, hardly a shock.
Maxx on June 17, 2008 at 12:57 PM
I wasn’t aware that polls had replaced the constitution.
However, Zetterson at 12:21 makes some good points. The longer the sheeple sleep, the closer we come to the second American revolution.
That is , if enough people wake up before too many are on the wrong side of a barbed wire fence to make any difference.
tomk59 on June 17, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Whatever you say, trollie troll troll.
wise_man on June 17, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Crude prices have nearly quadrupled since 2003. That’s the primary material input to refined products (which is what I thought we were talking about). Refining is also fairly energy intensive, and relies on chemicals that themselves have to be refined. Look at an input-output analysis for the petrochemical industry.
You get a shortage when quantity demanded exceeds quantity supplied, which typically only happens in the presence of price controls. No price controls here, no shortages. No repeal of Marshall’s law.
DrSteve on June 17, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Fair enough. Why chop things up into seperate categories of government abuse of power though? Each one of those things I mention are just different symptoms of the same expansion of government. Sure, some are bigger abuses than others but they should all be of concern to thinking, freedom loving Americans.
Zetterson on June 17, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Since public employee pension funds are heavily invested in oil companies they would be the worst hit by Nationalization. Kicking in the guts the very morons that are all for this. Talk about unintended consequences.
swassociates on June 17, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Amen, Zetterson. When arguments begin to be made for changing or deleting things that are supposed to be inviolate and unassailable, you are already in serious danger of losing those things.
tomk59 on June 17, 2008 at 1:11 PM
The Dems are a front for Communism, nothing more. Their tactics mirror them to a T.
They work hand in hand with them.
normsrevenge on June 17, 2008 at 1:14 PM
The most surprising statisitc?
35% of self-identified dems aren’t completely bat-shinola crazy
I wonder what McCain thinks about his wife’s fortune. It seems pretty obscene to me that some girl gets all that dough for what her fore bearers did. (not really, but if I was the Mac, I’d bee looking closer to home than the oil industries if I was all worked up about obscene profits).
VolMagic on June 17, 2008 at 1:22 PM
But if there is no shortage, then why have prices gone up so high if its ONLY supply and demand driving prices…
As I’ve said, COSTS could not have risen that dramatily, so someone has to be making a profit off of this. If its not the oil companies, then who?
Part of the problem is that Price is not really dependent on COST right now… its just based on what someone is willing to PAY. I think folks are speculating (gambling) with other peoples money in the hope that prices will continue to rise.
IF Bushy were to release about a third of the Strategic Reserve over the next couple of months, I think it would kill a lot of the speculation that is currently killing the price.
Romeo13 on June 17, 2008 at 1:23 PM
I think that the percentage of DEms who do not know what nationalizing means is probably higher than that.
Its scary to think about.
becki51758 on June 17, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Our high school curriculum needs two new required courses: economics and ecology. This way American citizens can be better informed what our political choices realistically are. Hopefully, an economics trained citizenry would be one in which there would be zero percent support for nationalizing the oil industry. An ecologically trained citizenry would hopefully eliminate some of the nonsense we encounter here at HotAir. And finally, we need to get serious about teaching Western Civilization again to the children. We need to know what hasn’t worked in the past so that Pat Buchanan will never again sell another book and so that Ron Paul and Obama will never again sell anyone that they have a realistic foreign policy.
thuja on June 17, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Rejoice comrades! All will be well when The People own the means of production.
Hope. Change. Socialism.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 17, 2008 at 1:39 PM
They really are the same in so many ways. The true difference between the American left and the old Communists, though, is the contemporary American left is just more subtle with their intentions. The Communists were defeated because they identified themselves as such. They laid out their intentions, announced them to the world and attempted to implement their stated intentions. They use prettier, nicer words today like fairness, shared properity, obscene profits, universal, etc. They use code words today because they have learned from their past mistakes. As conservatives we spend half our time listening to the left speak in their code language, figure out what they really mean by it then translate so we can call them out on thier big government socialism. And, with the help of their getaway drivers in the media, they have become very good at rolling their eyes and brushing us aside as we attempt to call a spade a spade. Now we are the crazy ones when we correctly label the Dems as socialists while they want to provide “free healthcare for every citizen”, or take earned profits from the oil companies. It makes my head hurt.
And the sad truth is that only a very small percentage of the American population could even explain why Communism is bad. Ignorance like that is why the Dems are able to get away with this stuff. Probably shouldn’t have let the government take over our nation’s school systems eh?
Zetterson on June 17, 2008 at 1:40 PM
It’s not an unintended consequence.
It’s an intended consequence.
MarkTheGreat on June 17, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Mexico’s petrol system is nationalized…
… and what a fine country that is.
madmonkphotog on June 17, 2008 at 1:54 PM
I agree with what you say, but the trouble is that when you “call a spade a spade” you may sound strident. Perhaps, we should be subtle ourselves and accuse of the Democrats of trying to reinvent socialism instead of labeling them as socialists. We can then say the Democrats reinvented socialism is bound to fail for the same reason the original socialism did. I think this a way we could sound insightful rather rant-y.
thuja on June 17, 2008 at 1:56 PM
I think you would be more effective at making your point if you would just say that I’m re-inventing rants.
Zetterson on June 17, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Holy Shit.
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
Me three.
JiangxiDad on June 17, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »