Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Romney: Obama “stooped to dishonesty” in ad

posted at 9:59 am on August 4, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Mitt Romney called Barack Obama a liar on CNN this morning in response to the Obama campaign ad “Pocket”. When asked about the claims that John McCain was in the pocket of Big Oil, Romney scoffed at Obama’s demonization of both the industry and of McCain, and pointed out that Obama takes money from the exact same source he decries in the ad:

Gov. Mitt Romney: “Well, that’s really sad. I didn’t know that Barack Obama had stooped to dishonesty. You know, pointing out weaknesses in other people’s campaigns or positions is also fair game, but that’s dishonest, as you know. First of all, corporations are not allowed to give contributions to candidates, and employees of oil companies give to Barack Obama as well as to John McCain. So, that’s part number one that’s dishonest. And, number two, John McCain doesn’t ask for any tax reduction for oil companies. There’s no special deal going to oil companies. He’s asking to reduce taxes on all corporations to help build our economy and strengthen jobs as well as reducing taxes on individuals. So, it’s simply dishonest as well as below the belt.”

CNN’s Kiran Chetry: “Just to clarify. According to The Washington Post, oil and gas industry executives and employees donated $1.1 million to John McCain’s campaign last month. So, I think that is what he’s referring to in that ad.”

Gov. Romney: “But what you don’t point out is the employees and executives of the oil companies also gave money to Barack Obama and to suggest that they only gave to John McCain is dishonest. There’s no indication that that’s the case. In fact, individuals can give to candidates of both parties and they regularly do.”

Chetry: “Right. Well, let me just ask you about this, because if John McCain became president, he wants to lower the corporate tax rate by 10%, so 35% down to 25% and that would include companies like big oil and Exxon Mobil who took in $12 billion last quarter alone. How do you explain that to the everyday Joe who’s seeing a larger chunk of their paycheck taken up by high gases prices and these oil companies are going to see more money in their pockets while the average guy is seeing less?”

Gov. Romney: “Well, first of all, he’s lowering taxes for all corporations in America to help make us more competitive with other nations of the world where corporations are going, because we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world next to Japan. So, he’s trying to build our economy and create more jobs and he’s not singling out any one company or another.”

What Chetry also misses in this exchange, and which Romney didn’t mention either, is the extraordinary amount of tax companies like ExxonMobil already pays. They paid three times as much in taxes as they made in profit in 2007. Government makes a lot more money on the backs of these “average Joes” than shareholders in these companies, many of whom are the same average Joes, thanks to the vast expansion of the investor class over the last 25 years.

Romney appears ready to get tough on the campaign trail, a quality that McCain will need in his running mate.  Eric Cantor and Sarah Palin have the same quality as well.  Normally the running mates on both tickets handle the negative campaigning rather than the presidential aspirants, but this summer has thus far forced both campaigns to begin their general election efforts earlier than usual.

Even if Romney doesn’t end up on the ticket, he’s showing that he can play hardball for the Republicans.  The McCain campaign needs to get him out in front of the media more, giving McCain more room to expand on his own agenda. In the meantime, the more Obama attacks him as a man who supports drilling, the better off McCain will be, allowing the 70% of Americans who support domestic drilling to identify the candidate who agrees with their position — and the one who rejects it.


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:

How do you explain that to the everyday Joe who’s seeing a larger chunk of their paycheck taken up by high gases prices and these oil companies are going to see more money in their pockets while the average guy is seeing less?”

Good grief, Kiran. At least make a minimal attempt to disguise the spin.

Slublog on August 4, 2008 at 10:02 AM

Slublog on August 4, 2008 at 10:02 AM

LOL no kidding. I got the feeling there were two auditions going on here. 1. Romney for VP 2. Chetry for Obama Press Secretary.

bj1126 on August 4, 2008 at 10:05 AM

They (Exxon/Mobil) paid three times as much in taxes as they made in profit in 2007.

Wow. If that were more commonly known, there wouldn’t be as much anger toward them.

jgapinoy on August 4, 2008 at 10:07 AM

How do you explain that to the everyday Joe who’s seeing a larger chunk of their paycheck taken up by high gases prices

Good question. Why not ask the Democrats who oppose expanded domestic drilling even if gas costs $10/gallon?

“Just to clarify. According to The Washington Post, oil and gas industry executives and employees donated $1.1 million to John McCain’s campaign last month. So, I think that is what he’s referring to in that ad.”

Gee, thanks, Kiran. Apparently we’ve established that you have access to Google. Were you unable to locate the same information about Obama?

amerpundit on August 4, 2008 at 10:08 AM

Go baby!!! gotta stay on the attack till NOV.
..Not that I’m all excited about McCain, but yeesh we cant let the marxist in the pres seat.

-Wasteland Man.

WastelandMan on August 4, 2008 at 10:09 AM

Good grief, Kiran. At least make a minimal attempt to disguise the spin.

Slublog on August 4, 2008 at 10:02 AM

Why? She’s on CNN…who would notice?

Jaibones on August 4, 2008 at 10:10 AM

This is just one of Mitt’s strengths. He can articulate economic concepts simply and forcefully. He also doesn’t mind taking off the gloves.

a capella on August 4, 2008 at 10:12 AM

I guess they just don’t teach critical thinking at modeling school. Buy a vowel info babe!

Mojave Mark on August 4, 2008 at 10:17 AM

Sheesh! Kiran looks like she’s shopping at Circuit City. Is that really a broadcast studio?

Mitt would be great as VP if McCain gave him domestic economic matters as his portfolio. And as capella noted, Mitt doesn’t mind engaging in a good smack-down. Too mean for some folk, I guess. Frankly, I like that about him.

Cody1991 on August 4, 2008 at 10:18 AM

Mitt does come off as very knowledgeable and well spoken. I wish he were our candidate but would be willing to settle for VP in order to curb government spending. He could help ensure 12 years of a republican white House.

trs on August 4, 2008 at 10:21 AM

How do you explain that to the everyday Joe who’s seeing a larger chunk of their paycheck taken up by high gases prices social services for illegals and these oil companies illegal aliens are going to see more money in their pockets while the average guy is seeing less?”

A better question for John McCain.

fourstringfuror on August 4, 2008 at 10:23 AM

CNN’s Kiran Chetry: “Just to clarify. According to The Washington Post, oil and gas industry executives and employees donated $1.1 million to John McCain’s campaign last month. So, I think that is what he’s referring to in that ad.”

Wow! Has it really become that blatant at CNN that “journalists” are now rationalizing what a political candidate says? Put another way why should Chetry be telling us what she thinks Obama is referring to?

highhopes on August 4, 2008 at 10:24 AM

The Dems have No One capable of going toe-to-toe with Romney on the economy. Obama isn’t qualified to carry Romney’s briefcase around.

Can McCain get Mitt’s full support and promotion without naming him VP?

There is something in it for Mitt, too. I believe this tough talk image would be an improvement over his “too slick; too perfect” image that his detractors whine about. If you look at his pearly smile, and know that he’s willing to cut your throat, you see a different guy, imo.

Jaibones on August 4, 2008 at 10:27 AM

Why doesn’t someone put out the real numbers the tax that Exxon Mobile paid. Allowing the use of only part of the story is not a good sign. McAMNEST should be shouting the numbers everywhere he goes.

As an aside, anyone looked at what a disaster the Romney health plan has actually turned into?

tarpon on August 4, 2008 at 10:30 AM

Will Obama have to include this contribution by CNN to his campaign?

originalpechanga on August 4, 2008 at 10:30 AM

“The Dems have No One capable of going toe-to-toe with Romney on the economy.”

Sure they do. “Democrat (insert name here), how’d you make your fortune?”

Ted Kennedy: Trust fund.

Patrick Kennedy: Trust fund.

Kerry: Rich wife.

Pelosi: Rich hubby.

Boxer: Rich hubby.

Feinstein: Rich hubby.

Frank: Male prostitution ring.

Edwards: Bilking insurance companies.

Reid: Nevada gaming commission, mob kickbacks and illegal land deals.

See? You can all get rich in the land of opportunity, if you just follow the example of these hard working Democrats.

NoDonkey on August 4, 2008 at 10:33 AM

This last week the McCain camp is gaining the big MO. Lets hope he can keep it.

Romney will move Conservatives (of which McCain needs) unfortunately the bigoted evangelicals may be lost, this is for the greater good.

Evangelicals have had their guy in Bush now it’s time to get on board with a McCain/Romney ticket.

(note: this is only for the “bigoted” evangelicals. I confess to being one of those until I watched Romney’s “Faith in America” speech. I have since repented but still see the bigotry in the “brothers and sisters”)

elraphbo on August 4, 2008 at 10:34 AM

the extraordinary amount of tax companies like ExxonMobil already pays. They paid three times as much in taxes as they made in profit in 2007

Windfall profits are the byproduct of non-investment when the recipient of said profits had no part in the business of making the profit or owning or investing in the profit but only received the profits out of the clear blue sky, “windfall” profits. The windfall profits tax provides Congress with windfall profits, and is unjustly applied to the oil industry on the industry’s investment, production and sale of petroleum.

It is the government, then, that is enjoying a WINDFALL PROFIT as it played NO PART in the investment or production of that wealth. As a matter of fact, the DNC government has done all within its power and gavel grasp to PREVENT the oil industry from profiting–denying drilling and refining, and levying fees of every sort on top of the 35% taxation of profit.

As with so much else, “windfall profits tax” has been defined by ubertard socialists via their native tongue, Newspeak, designed to diminish the range of thought.

maverick muse on August 4, 2008 at 10:35 AM

How long before we can add “Big Corn” to the list of the Eeeeeevil “Big” companies?

Rbastid on August 4, 2008 at 10:36 AM

Wow, if anyone wants an example of MSM shilling for Obama, there it is. Mitt gets a nice backhand in that CNN and that shill of a talking head that are as just as dishonest as the prophet himself.

August, and the kitchen is getting wicked hot.

Hening on August 4, 2008 at 10:43 AM

and that would include companies like big oil and Exxon Mobil who took in $12 billion last quarter alone.

I didn’t know big oil was a company.

alteredbeat on August 4, 2008 at 10:44 AM

Exxon-Mobil so far this year (2 qtrs):

Operating Income: $42.4B
After Tax Income: $22.5B
Shares of Stock: 5.2B
Dividends Declared: $0.75/Share
Dividends issued: $3.9B
—–
Est. annual government take: $80B
Est. annual shareholder take: $7.8B

Looks like someone has a windfall profit and it ain’t the company or the shareholders.

Dusty on August 4, 2008 at 10:44 AM

Wow, if anyone wants an example of MSM shilling for Obama, there it is.
Hening on August 4, 2008 at 10:43 AM

Absolutely. More people need to see this because for some, they don’t even know the proper definition of the word.

wise_man on August 4, 2008 at 10:48 AM

RE: how do you explain to the average ‘joe’. . .

Conservatives must confront, head on, the leftist idea of evil corporations and their evil profits by asking the very obvious question:

What is wrong with making a profit?

Profit is what pays above average employee wages.
Profit is what allows a company to hire more workers who earn that above average wage.
Profit is what allows a company to invest in research and development and grow the company, invent new products, innovate and adapt new processes.

In addition, conservatives have to confront the idea that corporations pay taxes. They do not, they collect takes for the government. Reducing taxes on a company, reduces the cost of staying in business which then permits a company to reduce the price it must charge for its products.

Conservatives have to stop accepting the idea that profit is a bad thing that only greedy corporations do when they gouge their costumers with high prices.

rockhauler on August 4, 2008 at 10:49 AM

“Looks like someone has a windfall profit and it ain’t the company or the shareholders.”

Exactly – I sold my stock in May went it was at $92.00 a share and purposely avoided looking at the price until recently, feeling sure that it had skyrocketed.

Today Exxon (XOM) is selling at $79 per share, the lowest in $52 weeks.

Of course, Obambi’s idiot rhetoric probably isn’t helping matters.

NoDonkey on August 4, 2008 at 10:50 AM

Dusty on August 4, 2008 at 10:44 AM

I hope someone from the RNC is monitoring HotAir today. You’ve just handed them their next campaign ad on a silver platter.

fogw on August 4, 2008 at 10:51 AM

Talking about greedy oil companies doesn’t seem like a winning general election strategy to me. Neither does giving $1000 to everyone from a windfall profits tax of the oil companies either.

Paul-Cincy on August 4, 2008 at 10:54 AM

Some of the gems from the interview include:

Romney: “I think he (Obama) laid out a key cornerstone of his energy policy when he said we can rid ourselves of our dependence on foreign oil if we simply inflate our tires and by tuning up our engines. And I don’t think Pollyanna answers are going to solve our energy needs.

What America is going to have to do is take advantage of every single source of additional energy. That means nuclear power plants, that means more coal, that means more natural gas, it means more drilling off-shore. It means all of the above, as well as alternative sources.”

Romney: “Where do you think those profits go? The oil company executives have already been paid before those profits are reported. Those profits go to all the share holders, all the retirees, all the mutual funds, it goes to the American people, and those profits also go to funding alternative energy sources, and drill for oil. So let’s not get too attacking, lets instead focus on how we can get energy independent and get gas prices down – short term and long term.”

joncoltonis on August 4, 2008 at 10:54 AM

The reason this is getting so much play is because of the simple fact that the average person on the street has no working knowledge on the economy and how it functions.

All they hear is that big oil is making record profits.

the public schools who were supposed to teach economics haven’t, all they have taught for the last 20-30 years is that capitalism is evil and greedy.

I would be interested to see how much Obama is getting from “Big Enviro”.

RobertInAustin on August 4, 2008 at 10:56 AM

(continuing)
General Motors is NOT paying taxes, because GM is not making a profit.
General Motors is having difficulty bring innovative new products to a changing market place because GM is not making a profit.
General Motors is NOT hiring new workers because GM is NOT making a profit. Instead, GM is laying off employees.

(typos are not the fault of the user. typos are the fault of this funky keyboard.)

rockhauler on August 4, 2008 at 10:58 AM

Funny, I hear no criticism of Obama getting $21 million from lawyers and law firms http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=K01 with a third of the money raised from “small donors” in NY and Ca…things that make you go hmmmmm…funny that! Crap News Network reporters must get bonuses by who can go deeper in the tank for Hussein

PatriotPete on August 4, 2008 at 11:00 AM

joncoltonis on August 4, 2008 at 10:54 AM

I want to hear this kind of stuff over and over from Republicans. They can’t repeat it enough to overcome what RobertinAustin mentioned about the brainwashing that has been occurring regarding “big oil”, but it will resonate with some people who actually have the capacity to question what they have been told.
I’m over Mitt for VP, but is there anyone else who has made the case as well as he has here?

Dead Hand Control on August 4, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Obama is a liar and an batterer. (This poor wuss felt a little more than a tingle.)

simon on August 4, 2008 at 11:01 AM

I’m still a little sad Kiran left fox.

She is a Fox.

cntrlfrk on August 4, 2008 at 11:08 AM

Will Obama have to include this contribution by CNN to his campaign?

originalpechanga on August 4, 2008 at 10:30 AM

He should pay a “windfall free campaign ad” tax on it.

Rodent on August 4, 2008 at 11:10 AM

[fogw on August 4, 2008 at 10:51 AM]

Hey, thanks.

I called the RNCC to ask if they’ve gotten airplane tickets to DC delivered to every Republican challenger to House Dems. The Party and these individual members can show their constituents now that they are ready to go to bat for the people come January.

Oh, plus they’ll get some great local campaign advertising footage and maybe some local news time.

Dusty on August 4, 2008 at 11:12 AM

Romney: “I think he (Obama) laid out a key cornerstone of his energy policy when he said we can rid ourselves of our dependence on foreign oil if we simply inflate our tires and by tuning up our engines. And I don’t think Pollyanna answers are going to solve our energy needs.
joncoltonis on August 4, 2008 at 10:54 AM

Beautiful! Probe that soft underbelly. It’s there for the taking.

a capella on August 4, 2008 at 11:21 AM

RobertInAustin on August 4, 2008 at 10:56 AM

Oh how right you are…it is shameful!!

jerrytbg on August 4, 2008 at 11:24 AM

Mitt’s calling someone a liar?

Talk about the kettle calling the pot black..

I guess that’s fair enough though..if anyone has tons of experience in telling lies on the political trail, no one’s more qualified than Mitt(Flip Flop)Romney…he’s the John Kerry of the right.

SaintOlaf on August 4, 2008 at 11:45 AM

SaintOlaf on August 4, 2008 at 11:45 AM

You didn’t get any response to your post on huck earlier, so now you’ve gone on the attack? Don’t troll.

Dead Hand Control on August 4, 2008 at 11:50 AM

Mitt’s calling someone a liar?

SaintOlaf on August 4, 2008 at 11:45 AM

No, he’s calling Obama a liar.

Obama is a liar, making Mitt correct in his assessment.

fogw on August 4, 2008 at 11:51 AM

No, he’s calling Obama a liar.
Obama is a liar, making Mitt correct in his assessment.
fogw on August 4, 2008 at 11:51 AM

You could say that.

wise_man on August 4, 2008 at 11:53 AM

[Paul-Cincy on August 4, 2008 at 10:54 AM]

What I’d like to know is to whom Obama intends to send $1,000 checks as a rebate.

There were just over 100M votes in 2004 and the participation rate was about, say 60%. That would make it about 166M voting age citizens. Let’s say 170M when including perm residents who also pay taxes.

That would mean Obama thinks he’s going to get $166B from the oil companies. Do the oil companies even have a total $166B net annual income? Exxon-Mobil, the largest one, has only some $40B after tax net income, which, again, is before the $7.6B dividends E-M dishes out to share holders. Does Obama plan to raid our savings and pension plan returns on investment to fund his rebate?

Methinks Obama is playing games and his rebate is going to be a sliding scale with $1,000 to the lowest on the income ladder and something approaching zippo for people with above average incomes.

Dusty on August 4, 2008 at 11:55 AM

Dusty on August 4, 2008 at 11:55 AM

The new math strikes again!

jerrytbg on August 4, 2008 at 11:59 AM

Dead Hand Control on August 4, 2008 at 11:50 AM

Actually I did get a response.

As for Mitt, don’t worry man… you’ll thank me and mine someday for saving the republican party by knocking Mitt out of the presidential/VP running.

He was a disaster in waiting.

SaintOlaf on August 4, 2008 at 12:01 PM

Maybe Romney should have explained the whole supply-demand part of economics for the morons that still don’t understand the concept.

Seixon on August 4, 2008 at 12:02 PM


and that would include companies like big oil and Exxon Mobil who took in $12 billion last quarter alone.

I didn’t know big oil was a company.

alteredbeat on August 4, 2008 at 10:44 AM

Bingo. That’s a Big Clue that Kiran is on Big Barry’s side on this issue.

Buy Danish on August 4, 2008 at 12:11 PM

WOW, three times as much in TAXES as profits for 2007… This is one of the best kept secrets MSM wants to keep from MAINSTREAM AMERICA… Let that one out.. WOOPS, I forgot MSM does not think that is NEWS…

pueblo1032 on August 4, 2008 at 12:11 PM

WOW, three times as much in TAXES as profits for 2007… This is one of the best kept secrets MSM wants to keep from MAINSTREAM AMERICA… Let that one out.. WOOPS, I forgot MSM does not think that is NEWS…
pueblo1032 on August 4, 2008 at 12:11 PM

And the democrats want to confiscate more than their already .. thirty six billion in taxes that is already taken from them?

Maybe someone should make this into a campaign commercial.

wise_man on August 4, 2008 at 12:21 PM

Maybe someone should make this into a campaign commercial.

[wise_man on August 4, 2008 at 12:21 PM]

When they do, it ought to include Dem quotes showing that what they really want to do is nationalize US private oil companies.

A picture of Hugo Chavez would be nice, too.

Dusty on August 4, 2008 at 12:25 PM

Talk about the kettle calling the pot black..

Why can’t we leave racism out of this?

I am shocked, shocked that this debate had been reduced to slinging racial, hurtful words.

Some Black Reverend hypocrite in 1…2….3…..

Hening on August 4, 2008 at 12:28 PM

The “Windfall Profits Tax” is just there so that oil companies won’t be able to afford to drill the OCS if the ban gets lifted.

cthulhu on August 4, 2008 at 1:00 PM

Another noticeable item here is the manner in which Chetry talks so fast, as if she has this talking point to get out, and she hasnt the time or skill to perfect her delivery.

By talking so fast, she sounds impatient, uninformed and amatuerish, as if she had memorized her question and is too scared to slow down and make her delivery sound professional.

One of the worst sins a communicator can commit, but hardly surprising from CNN. Chetry’s producers have given her the hit o’the day on the big bad Rethuglican Mitt, and she’d better come through or the only story she’ll be covering this year will be “How to crochet a willy-warmer for that special someone.”

Mike D. on August 4, 2008 at 1:03 PM

So do I understand then that if Exxon made $12B, then did they pay $36B in taxes, plus the $.40 to $.50 tax per gallon that we pay? What the heck are they doing with all that money? Oh, I’m sorry, they are PAYING FOR PORK!

TimothyJ on August 4, 2008 at 1:08 PM

Mike D. on August 4, 2008 at 1:03 PM

Kiran Chetry should not be allowed to discuss, on TV, economics with a former CEO and state governor. She aptly demonstrated through her questions that she has no idea what she’s talking about.

I wish Mitt had shut her down; it wouldn’t have taken much.

BigD on August 4, 2008 at 1:10 PM

Cap’n Ed states: What Chetry also misses in this exchange, and which Romney didn’t mention either, is the extraordinary amount of tax companies like ExxonMobil already pays. They paid three times as much in taxes as they made in profit in 2007.

Uncertain how your are coming up with this figure, Cap’n Ed. XOM’s net income (”Profit”) was $40.9 Billion in 2007. Your statement indicates that they paid $123 Billion in taxes. Looking at XOM’s 10K I’m not seeing that figure in the Income Statement or the notes.

XOM paid $4.66 billion in federal income taxes in 2007. (Source Note 18 to XOM 2007 10K) XOM paid an additional $630 million in State taxes. Total taxes paid to the various American governments: $5.12 Billion (Some differences due to deferred taxes etc). On $40.9 Billion of total profit, XOM paid 12.5%.

However that figure is not correct, or fair, as the profits take into account non-U.S. operations but only include U.S. taxes. To get a fair look at the U.S. tax treatment of Revenue/Profits from U.S. operations those should be limited to U.S. operations.

One way to look at it is to see that 31% of XOM’s revenues come from U.S. operations.(From Income Statement) Therefore 31% of the $40.9 billion is 12.69 Billion. Add back in the U.S. taxes to that approx. U.S. Profit and you have $17.73 billion. Thus the $5.12 billion tax on $12.69 billion is a tax rate of 28.8%.

Note 18 of the XOM 10K provides Income before Taxes brokedown by U.S. and Non-U.S. $13.7 billion of Income before Taxes reportedly comes from U.S. operations of total of $70.4 billion. (Only 18% of Income before Taxes are from U.S., whereas 31% of revenues were derived from U.S. possibliy due to high costs of U.S. operations or financial gerrymandering) $5.2 Billion of taxes on $13.7 Billion is a tax rate of 37.9%.

Possible explanations for why your figure of 3X the profits of XOM were paid in taxes: 1) Included Non-U.S. taxes paid which amounted to $91.3 Billion; 2) Included the 7.1 Billion of sales taxes collected (however this figure doesn’t factor into the total revenue of a firm as it is never the firm’s money, it is just a collection point); 3)miscalculation.

I think that including the $91.3 billion is misleading in several respects. Your posting lead the reader to infer that the taxes collected were collected by the U.S. or state governments.

In addition, some foreign governments that own the land that XOM drills upon structure their commission/profit participation as a tax on revenues in order to particpate on the upside. A private individual would be paid $10 per barrell for giving XOM permission to drill upon their land. Deals worked out with foreign governments often characterize this payment as a “tax” so that it gives the foreign government more power to unilaterlly change and gives some tax and financial benefits to the oil driller/producer. Therefore much of this $91.Billion “tax” would be better characterized as acquisition costs or continuing operating expenses.

Having worked with XOM on one occassion on a finacial matter, I must say I greatly admire how the company is run. It is the most efficient large company I’ve ever dealt with. (At least from the financing end, I’ve heard other stories about the way they treat geologists and engineers). I’ve never known a company to squeeze a penny as hard as those guys did.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on August 4, 2008 at 1:12 PM

The government is already double dipping with the oil and gas. They tax the income that the Oil companies make, they tax gas at the pumps. How much does the government have to take before we say enough is enough. WE are the ones suffering and the government, especially if Obama is elected is making it worse everyday!

saltydogg14 on August 4, 2008 at 1:24 PM

Of course it would have been nice if Mitt had pointed out that all of the money that BIG Oil and Exxon/Mobil pays to the government they get by selling products to consumers. Raise the taxes and you raise their costs. Raise their costs they’ll raise their price. Why does the left find this so difficult to understand?

Stephen Macklin on August 4, 2008 at 1:38 PM

SaintOlaf on August 4, 2008 at 11:45 AM

…riiiight.

sulla on August 4, 2008 at 2:01 PM

The McCain campaign needs to get him out in front of the media more

Lol, you know the first time I read that I thought it said “The McCain campaign needs to get him out in front of the media whore”.

Aylios on August 4, 2008 at 2:23 PM

OMG has Kiran Chetry gone full on Lib? :{

sheesh.. I remember when she was on Fox News..

This is NOT the Kiran Chetry that I thought i knew..

{Shakes Head} :{

Chakra Hammer on August 4, 2008 at 4:25 PM

Now we know why she left Fox, she`s not fair and totaly unbalanced.

ThePrez on August 4, 2008 at 4:58 PM

Ever notice how the Democrats are all for anti globalization until it comes to energy production? Then it is better to buy the oil or natural gas from just about anyone, but an American company. Never mind that the Saudis and Hugo Chavez do not have to pay anything in the way of taxes.

Terrye on August 4, 2008 at 5:13 PM

“XOM paid $4.66 billion in federal income taxes in 2007 …”

[New_Jersey_Buckeye on August 4, 2008 at 1:12 PM]

Where do you get that info from, NJB? I looked at the Exxon-Mobil’s Annual Report (warning: big pdf) and the summary report of the Independent auditor PWC, noted in the finanacial statement near the end of the report (pg 40 of 52), this:

Income Taxes: $29.864B

Is there some explanation for this significantly different number that isn’t explained in the Annual Report.

FWIW, I might also note these items from their report that came before Net Income:

Sales based taxes: $31.728B
Other Taxes and Duties: $40.953B

Dusty on August 4, 2008 at 5:32 PM

“How do you explain to the average Joe that 45 cents from every gallon of gas he buys goes to pay the salaries of lowlife democrats who left for a 5 week vacation without doing anything about our growing energy crisis? What do you say to the hardworking average Joe about that money going to illegal aliens that those same dirtbag politicians are protecting instead of protecting him? What do you say to the same Joe about those same lowlife politicians who are taking their families on taxpayer funded “junkets” during those 5 weeks?”

I hate slutty, ignorant leftist cnn talking heads.

peacenprosperity on August 4, 2008 at 5:50 PM

He was a disaster in waiting.

SaintOlaf on August 4, 2008 at 12:01 PM

After slutty, ignorant leftist cnn talking heads, I really hate ignorant, bigots. Me thinks you are in for a very rude awakening at the Pearly Gates.

peacenprosperity on August 4, 2008 at 5:53 PM

Where do you get that info from, NJB? I looked at the Exxon-Mobil’s Annual Report (warning: big pdf) and the summary report of the Independent auditor PWC, noted in the finanacial statement near the end of the report (pg 40 of 52), this:

Income Taxes: $29.864B

Is there some explanation for this significantly different number that isn’t explained in the Annual Report.

FWIW, I might also note these items from their report that came before Net Income:

Sales based taxes: $31.728B
Other Taxes and Duties: $40.953B

Dusty on August 4, 2008 at 5:32 PM

Dusty, I got my information from Note 18 to ExxonMobil’s Annual report. (Sorry, I referred to the company by ticker (XOM) and the annual report by it’s technical regulatory filing name “10K” in my orignial posting.) Here is link to the 2007 10K filing (Warning Large download) For some stock analysts, the “annual report” is often not read, or at least the management discussion portion thereof. It is seen as mere puffery and does not often give concrete information. It is in the notes to the financial statments that the real information about a company is contained.

In all annual reports the financial statements represent consolidated statements. You have to look to the notes to the Annual report to discover breakouts of individual line items. Note 18 to ExxonMobil’s Annual report contains the breakout of “Income, Sales-Based and Other Taxes”

The $29.864 Billion figure you are looking at is a combination of the total U.S. Taxes (Federal, State, etc) of $5.12 Billion and non-U.S. Income taxes of $24.744 Billion. Therefore only 17% of XOM’s income taxes are paid to U.S. governmental entities. My figure 4.66 billion is the Federal portion of the U.S. income tax due for 2007.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on August 4, 2008 at 6:19 PM

[New_Jersey_Buckeye on August 4, 2008 at 6:19 PM]

Thanks for the info and link, I appreciate it.

Dusty on August 4, 2008 at 7:07 PM

After slutty, ignorant leftist cnn talking heads, I really hate ignorant, bigots. Me thinks you are in for a very rude awakening at the Pearly Gates.

peacenprosperity on August 4, 2008 at 5:53 PM

they’ll be red.

and on fire.

sulla on August 4, 2008 at 7:22 PM

This last week the McCain camp is gaining the big MO. Lets hope he can keep it.

Romney will move Conservatives (of which McCain needs) unfortunately the bigoted evangelicals may be lost, this is for the greater good.

Evangelicals have had their guy in Bush now it’s time to get on board with a McCain/Romney ticket.

(note: this is only for the “bigoted” evangelicals. I confess to being one of those until I watched Romney’s “Faith in America” speech. I have since repented but still see the bigotry in the “brothers and sisters”)

elraphbo on August 4, 2008 at 10:34 AM

I’m an evangelical and I am not bigoted. I did not support Romney because I suported Huckabee who thinks more along the same lines I do. Romney changed his positions on important social issues because it was politically expedient and that hurt him. Not agreeing with him or trusting him on these issues does not make me a bigot!

CCRWM on August 4, 2008 at 9:03 PM

Chetry and her ilk are the reason I don’t bother to watch CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and NBC…

CCRWM on August 4, 2008 at 9:05 PM

Another noticeable item here is the manner in which Chetry talks so fast, as if she has this talking point to get out, and she hasnt the time or skill to perfect her delivery.

By talking so fast, she sounds impatient, uninformed and amatuerish, as if she had memorized her question and is too scared to slow down and make her delivery sound professional.

Mike D. on August 4, 2008 at 1:03 PM

I thought she was doing that so she could get the hit in and he woudn’t have a chance to respond thus making it look like he agreed or she was right. He just didn’t let her get away with it…

CCRWM on August 4, 2008 at 9:18 PM

Romney changed his positions on important social issues because it was politically expedient and that hurt him.

You seized on the media attack on Romney because it was easy to hide your bigotry that way. You people don’t fool anyone.

peacenprosperity on August 4, 2008 at 9:39 PM

I’m an evangelical and I am not bigoted….Not agreeing with him or trusting him on these issues does not make me a bigot!

CCRWM on August 4, 2008 at 9:03 PM

I agree that differing with a candidate on their policy or record does not make one bigoted.

I believe elraphbo is referring to those who opposed Romney on religious grounds – the extreme, fringe, “a vote for Romney is a vote for Satan” folks.

On Hot Air, the posters who fit that description could probably fit on the fingers of one hand…or two, perhaps, depending on who you ask. Only four really stick out in my mind.

sulla on August 4, 2008 at 9:41 PM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.