digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Romney: McCain Doesn’t Ask For Any Tax Reduction For Big Oil

thinkprogress.org — Mitt Romney appeared on CNN to discuss an ad by Barack Obama that argues John McCain would give $4 billion in tax breaks to Big Oil. Romney declared the charge “dishonest” and “below the belt.” There is nothing dishonest about pointing out the fact that McCain’s plan would give nearly $4 billion in tax breaks to the six largest oil companies

show profanity settings
expand all
  • AtHomeBoy2000, on 08/04/2008, -31/+51“dishonest” and “below the belt"? How is ti dishonest? McCain wants to drop the corporate tax rates and that would give Big Oil $4 billion in tax cats.

    It's not "dishonest" It's a fact.
    • garryw, on 08/04/2008, -22/+38It's dishonest because corporations don't donate money, voters do. It's dishonest because Obama gets money from the same (oil industry) employees and execs. It's dishonest because across the board tax cuts help everybody who works for a corporation and does not give any preference to big oil.

      An Example: If Nike lowers it's price on shoes and an oil worker buys them does that mean Nike supports big oil? Think about it. Across. The. Board.
      • cubicledrone, on 08/05/2008, -11/+18Corporations don't donate money?

        What the *****?


      • Tenlow, on 08/05/2008, -19/+11More importantly, he wants to cut taxes across the board, at a time when we're nearing financial ruin, he wants to take more money out of the government.

        That fact alone should bar him from the office of president of the united states of america.
      • dexter411, on 08/05/2008, -12/+18"Corporations don't donate money?

        What the *****? "

        No. They don't. Election finance reform makes it illegal.

        "More importantly, he wants to cut taxes across the board, at a time when we're nearing financial ruin, he wants to take more money out of the government."

        1.) We're nowhere near financial ruin, kiddo.
        2.) The economy is not an indicator of how much of our money our government has. Take a course in macroeconomics before saying stupid things like this.
      • FTWmovin2canada, on 08/05/2008, -3/+3Failure on differentiating personal income tax and corporate income tax.
      • cubicledrone, on 08/05/2008, -8/+5Election finance reform?

        *****.
      • rowjimmy, on 08/05/2008, -6/+9ha, and trickle down economics works, right?
      • FTWmovin2canada, on 08/05/2008, -7/+1*
      • LunaticFringe, on 08/05/2008, -2/+8Yep. Corporations don't donate money. The recently deceased do. :)
      • toastybeast, on 08/05/2008, -1/+5The ad didn't say corporations, it said Big Oil. Subtle difference.
      • Latentk, on 08/05/2008, -4/+12Holy *****, Tenlow. I hope that for the love of god you are not of voting age. This is how Democratic Candidates continue to get into office, people like yourself seem numb to the reality of situations.

        If we "remove" money from the government, thereby increasing the amount of money in our, or others, hands; would that not give you more money to spend and thus perpetuate us out of this recession? Hmm, more money means increased chance of spending which must mean more money all around. Are you retarded? Or just 10?
      • emjaymj, on 08/05/2008, -1/+9@Tenlow

        Oh come on, even anybody that has taken high school economics knows that tax cuts are an effective way of stimulating the economy.
      • dragon76, on 08/05/2008, -9/+7LOL "Across the board tax cuts help everybody who works for a corporation"

        Ronald Reagan, is that you? I know it has to be because only in the 80's did people actually KIND OF believe that if rich people have more money, we'll all be better off. I take that back, isn't that the slogan for the Republican Party?
      • emjaymj, on 08/05/2008, -3/+7@dragon76

        Most jobs are NOT provided by giant corporations where increased profits mean little to the employees. Most jobs are provided by smaller corporations for which tax cuts like these might mean being able to hire a few more needed workers. As much as these large corporations are increasingly running smaller setups out of business, they are still very much the foundation of our economy.
      • gianpo, on 08/05/2008, -7/+6@Latenik
        Holy *****, Latentk. I hope that for the love of god you are not of voting age. This is how Repug Candidates continue to get into office, people like yourself seem numb to the reality of situations.

        If we "remove" money from the government, thereby increasing the amount of money in the richest 1% hands; would that not give you more money for them to hoard and thus perpetuate us into a recession? Hmm, more money in the richest 1% hands means increased chance of that money sitting in the bank doing nothing which must mean more money for them not the rest of us. Are you retarded? Or just 10?
      • gianpo, on 08/05/2008, -7/+2@Latentk
        Holy *****, Latentk. I hope that for the love of god you are not of voting age. This is how Democratic Candidates continue to get into office, people like yourself seem numb to the reality of situations.

        If we "remove" money from the government, thereby increasing the amount of money in richest 1% hands; would that not give them more money to sit in the bank and perpetuate us into a recession? Hmm, more money means increased chance of that money sitting around in the richest 1% pockets. Are you retarded? Or just 10?
      • tkstock, on 08/05/2008, -0/+3gianpo,

        Wealthy people don't deposit their wealth in a bank. Interest rates being what they are, people of means invest money into other companies which creates jobs and spurs innovation. Wealthy people also buy more goods which increases revenue for companies and spurs job growth.

        If you think the wealthy have their money just sitting around doing nothing, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
    • Newportbeachguy, on 08/05/2008, -15/+7Athomeboy, tell your mom (since you live at home) to stop making the kool-aid.
    • FGJfighter, on 08/05/2008, -8/+2Spell check and you might have a valid point there.
    • JettaMan, on 08/05/2008, -6/+12That would be great if McCain or any other politician would drop tax rates for businesses. When businesses are taxed less, they thrive and we thrive. We're already paying about 35% taxes at the pumps.
    • twomeyw23334, on 08/05/2008, -5/+11It's not dishonest, but Obama wants to tax solar and wind turbine corporations MORE than McCain. This is because he likes America having one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world (outsourcing anyone?). McCain wants to lower the corporate tax rate which will help solar panel corporations and such.
      Obama supports greater taxes on solar corporations!!!!
      What's dishonest with my statement? It's not "dishonest" it's fact. McCain should make an add about it so all the same Obama worshipers backing up Obama's distorted facts in this thread can then call McCain a liar.
    • richbleak, on 08/05/2008, -7/+7Oil companies are thriving just fine, Jetta. Let's be serious here for a second. This is about where the tax cuts go. Obama is simply pointing out that McCain's tax cuts are far more favorable to people and organizations that take in huge amounts of money. Oil companies are simply a stand-in for corporate "fat cats". There is a streak of populism running through the nation right now; Obama is the populist candidate. Why do people think that by ignoring this simple logic they are somehow making a point? Anyone with any sense understands that Obama is not literally saying that McCain has introduced a plan to specifically target oil companies with tax breaks. It shocks me that people really think that pretending to be stupid is somehow a way to win an argument. Grow the ***** up and lets talk about policy.
      • twomeyw23334, on 08/05/2008, -3/+8That's an apologetic statement if I've ever read one. The add is clearly making it look like McCain is specifically targeting oil companies with tax breaks (did you watch it?). Are we supposed to pretend the add didn't distort facts!?
        And if you really want to talk policy, do you really think a corporate tax cut should be littered with exceptions for various specific corporations that are the target of leftist hate at the moment. Even if you agreed with such a thing, it would seem better policy to issue a corporate tax cut and windfall oil profit / energy plan separately.
        The idea that everything should be lumped into one giant policy is a bit absurd. This would be like me complaining that Obama wants to make health care more affordable to oil execs (because he wants to make it more affordable to everyone). That PIG!!!!
      • prahareturns, on 08/05/2008, -2/+6richbleak: It's pathetic to see that you resort to derogatory comments to win an argument. It's even more shocking to see how naive you sound by actually proposing that Obama's team is not jumping on the "Big Oil is bad" bandwagon. It's obvious to anyone who uses basic logic that Obama's team is trying to paint McCain as an oil company puppet who would do anything to support big oil at the expense of the American people. Regardless of which candidate you support, campaign adds which distort the facts and mislead the American public are employed by both parties and are equally offensive. It's about time to we become objective critics and call a spade and spade and move on.
      • richbleak, on 08/05/2008, -2/+3prahareturns: Enough with the fake outrage. Of course they are jumping on the "Big Oil is bad" bandwagon; I never for a moment suggested otherwise. This is what makes big oil such a great target for his populist themes. I'm simply saying that Romney and people like you pretend like they don't know what Obama is saying here.

        Rather than address the point of how the tax plans are allocated, Mitt chose to claim Obama was lying because John McCain hadn't specifically targeted oil companies for tax breaks. This doesn't address the fact that McCain's plan does deliver 4 billion in tax breaks to big oil; whether you believe that is a good thing or not is a perfectly legitimate debate. Let's have that debate rather than pretending Obama is fabricating things. Let's talk about where Tax Breaks should be targeted in the near future. What are the financial consequences? How do the two plans affect the nation? If we have to bear the "gotcha" nonsense, let's at least have it be based on the intent of the speaker instead of the listeners ability to thread, or be fooled by, a sophism.

        As an interesting aside, both phrahareturns and twomeyw23334 have an extremely similar writing style. They both also just happen to incorrectly use "add" instead of "ad". I'll assume a coincidence here, but it would be really pathetic for someone to create two Digg accounts to skew the perception of support on these threads. It would take a real pathetic human being to make that move.
      • prahareturns, on 08/05/2008, -2/+1Sorry to disappoint you but I don't have enough free-time to play with two accounts and fabricate support.

        Yes, you are correct a corporate tax break would provide oil companies the same break as every other corporation. The dollar savings realized by the oil companies is staggering given their size and current profitability.

        Since both "plans" are half baked at this point in time and are more campaign rhetoric then actual plans I feel that a side-by-side comparison is essentially a waste of time. Given what we know of both "plans" there are positives and negatives to both.

        Creating a "windfall" tax is problematic. How would the tax be defined? Should revenue versus profit percentage be taken into consideration? Should R&D expenses be taken into consideration? How often should the "windfall" tax be reviewed? Should it be based on industry only or should all US companies face "windfall" profit tax?
        After the tax is defined we need to utilize the revenue received. I'm in favor of utilizing these funds for developing alternative and sustainable fuels and technologies. I'm not in favor of a short term patch providing a 1K energy credit to families. We need to address our long term energy needs and short term handouts will keep us further from a solution.

        As for McCain's corporate tax break "plan" I view it as potentially shortsighted unless we also curb federal spending and eliminate the Bush tax cuts. We cannot continue to spend at our current rate and cut taxes. I agree with proponents of the tax cuts that American companies will be more competitive on the world market but I disagree that this will make up for the revenue shortfall created by the tax cuts. The current value of the dollar will have a larger global competitive impact for US based businesses than a 10% tax break. I feel that we need to reign in congressional spending and balance our budget before we add any new tax cuts.

        Oh, and about the spelling error. It's late and I'm about to crash for the night. Usually spell check would catch my bad typing but not when the mistake is a actual word.
      • twomeyw23334, on 08/05/2008, -2/+3richbleak, great minds think alike

        As you use the same defensive arguments and fact distorting as thousands of other Obama supporters, I have to wonder how many accounts...?
    • koob, on 08/05/2008, -2/+5Technically it's a fact, but that's only part of the truth. President Bush always said about the WMDs in Iraq "according to some intelligence there are weapons." What he didn't say is according to some other intelligence there weren't weapons.

      Obama says McCain wants to give $4 billion in tax breaks to "Big Oil". Obama doesn't say taxes for all corporations would be cut. (Or maybe he does. Liberals seem to think "corporation" and "evil/greed" are synonyms.)

      Now is that change we can believe in, Mr. Obama?
      • letherial, on 08/05/2008, -0/+0obama has more change in his pinky then mcain has in his whole campiagn

        seriously, maybe obama isnt the amount of 'change' everyone wants, but its so far differnt then the current way things are ran i think the baby steps is worth it.
    • SmokedL, on 08/05/2008, -2/+2On the topic of tax cuts, here's an image describing McCain's versus Obama's tax plans:

      http://outtheotherear.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/ ...

      Any and all regulation and taxation ultimately results in redistribution of resources. McCains changes redistributes resources from those that have very little and gives it to the super rich. Obama's plan redistributes resources from the super rich and gives it to those that have little.

      Anyone that believes McCain's tax cuts will benefit the average american more than Obama's will must have been smoking something rather potent.
      • tkstock, on 08/05/2008, -1/+3You see the top tax increases in Obama's plan? Where does that money come from? It comes out of the economy. Wealthy people don't have their money in a bank collecting 1.5% interest. They have it invested in other companies which create jobs and spur innovation. Like it or not, wealthy spending and investment keep this economy flowing.

        Also, if you increase corporate and payroll tax rates, you will drive jobs out of this country.

        You have to look deeper than the "all rich people are evil money-hoarders" philosophy that liberals try to pound into you. A little understanding of macroeconomics helps, too.
      • SmokedL, on 08/05/2008, -2/+1@tkstock
        Right. Trickle down economics work.
        Meanwhile, in the real US, there are countless people struggling to get by, working their ass off for minimum wage and are still unable to give their family a decent life. They can't afford insurance on their, all but nonexistent, income, so if they get sick or hurt they're up the creek without a paddle. Going out in the street they are not safe because so many feel that the only way to a decent life is crime. There are countless areas where the wise will not tread, and even the police stay away most of the time.

        Zoom over to the evil communists in the social democratic countries in Europe, such as the Scandinavian countries, and somehow even those on welfare are better off than the wage slaves in the US. And the countries economies are not about to crash. And in study after study the populations in such nations are ranked top in the world in general welfare, education, happiness, infant mortality, general health, etc etc.

        And it's entirely possible to run a business and make good money. As I well know living in Sweden and running my own, one man, consulting firm quite successfully. I gladly pay the higher percent of taxes that my income brings. The benefits are easily worth it.

        Far lower crime rates, because people can get a decent life if they work.
        No slums, nowhere you need to be afraid to go.
        Far less segregation and racial violence.
        No going broke because you get sick.
        No being force to give up an education because you have to help with feeding your family.

        etc etc etc.

        I'm where I am today because I live in a decent society. If you want to believe that trickle down is the way to go that's your prerogative, but you will have to wear major blinders not to see reality staring you in the face.
      • squinky86, on 08/05/2008, -1/+2So with Obama, I save ~$350 a year on taxes. With McCain, I save ~$100. But then, I have to pay more taxes for gasoline that the gas companies push to the consumer. With Obama, I would spend >$1000 in gasoline purchase alone. With McCain, I would spend >$750 in taxes alone.

        Already, we're now at both the tax plans being equal. But with McCain's, the trickle-down economics works for more than just the oil/gas industry.

        Over the year, McCain will put more into my pocket. In the short term, Obama will put more in my pocket on April 15th. It's like, would you prefer $1 every day for the next year, or a $350 check in the middle of next year (April 15)? I'll take the $1/day, please!
      • SmokedL, on 08/05/2008, -2/+1"With Obama, I would spend >$1000 in gasoline purchase alone."
        Where if I may ask did you find this number?

        I love the theory though. It's so deliciously nutty.
        1. Increase taxes on the rich.
        2. Lower taxes on those with little.
        3. ?????
        4. Economic disaster. The apocalypse. All jobs outsourced. Prices rising left and right. It's anarchy, rain falling up.


        Alternative theory.
        1. Increase taxes on the rich.
        2. Lower taxes on those with little.
        3. The, collectively, huge amount of money now in the hands of people that have so little they are all but guaranteed to spend it on necessities will do just that. Spend it.
        4. The increase in consumer spending helps the economy.
        5. The decreased number of desperate people will lower the crime rate saving huge amounts of money.(See crime rate in socialist countries for reference)
        5. Poor rich person gets to wait another week to be able to buy that 5th Ferrari.
        6. Rain still falls down.

        There is zero evidence of an extreme concentration of wealth among an elite is beneficial. Because it's not. To have a functioning economy you need most people do be decently off, not a tiny clique to be hugely rich. Trickle down economics always has, and always will, be a fallacy.

        I'm amazed that people do not see this. The argument pretty much goes like this:

        Make us really really rich, and we'll spend a lot, and somehow that will benefit you. If you don't make sure we get almost all the money we wont spend it and the economy will tank. Because we're so much more likely to spend it, having everything and all. It's not like the average person spends a greater percentage of their income or anything.
      • letherial, on 08/05/2008, -1/+0"You see the top tax increases in Obama's plan? Where does that money come from? It comes out of the economy. Wealthy people don't have their money in a bank collecting 1.5% interest. They have it invested in other companies which create jobs and spur innovation. Like it or not, wealthy spending and investment keep this economy flowing."

        ya because people who are poor and did not get a education shouldnt eat because they where stupid

        what your saying is, its ok that the poor struggle so much, cause the rich are rich and the poor should be slaves...im sorry, but the poor got enough problems to deal with, food, energy, health care, finding a place to live, keeping warm in the winter. all that is ok as long as the rich get to keep there riches...

        and education, well we got to keep the poor poor so they can stay the slaves of the rich for generations to come!! cant let them have abortions, because thats one lost slave...

        do you have any morales in that dark heart of yours?

      • tkstock, on 08/06/2008, -1/+1letherial,

        Would you like to put more people out of work? Obama's policies will make MORE poor people. You have to look at the larger picture. Sure people are struggling. McCain isn't taking anything out of their pockets - in fact he's cutting taxes for the poor too. The fact is that people need to have a job to get out of poverty, not government handouts. If you increase corporate taxes, decrease investing through taxation and penalties, you will put people out of work which will INCREASE the number of poor people relying on the government for assistance. Maybe that's Obama's plan? The more money you tax the rich to put into the welfare system, the more people join the welfare system and require more funds from it. It's a vicious cycle.

        God forbid we teach people to have personal responsibility and stop relying on the government to provide for us... the welfare state we are getting ourselves into is a real quagmire. We may never get out.

        As far are "morals" goes, I think giving people the opportunities of a higher standard of living is the higher moral ground, personally. Don't base your morality on government handouts. Your simplistic viewpoint of taking from the rich and giving to the poor as a moral basis for welfare is misinformed and negligent of the facts.
    • singularityv, on 08/05/2008, -1/+5It's dishonest because this is an across-the-board tax cut that applies to all corporations.

      It's like complaining that a cut in personal income taxes gives a tax break to your neighbor who you don't like.

      The left just gets crazier and crazier. And as a supporter of big business, I hope McCain gets his way here.
  • kigcoopa84, on 08/04/2008, -11/+34oil companies are not the only corporations. That is like me saying obama supports drug users and criminals because he wants to give them a grand if he gets elected. Maybe only 3% fall in that category but that is a higher ratio than oil corporations compared to all other corporations.
    • n00ptic, on 08/05/2008, -9/+2Your argument is a terribly flawed straw man, but there is a kernel of validity in there. The ad should more accurately have stated that McCain is in the pocket of big business, and wants the middle class pay for corporate tax breaks. Is that better? Because it's certainly more accurate, although it doesn't seem to help your boy McCain at all.
    • chourobin, on 08/05/2008, -2/+1Why would we trust oil companies to bring us alternative fuels. THEY ARE LAUGHING AT US ALL. If you're a stockholder, you hope oil prices stay sky high. get rid of oil subsidies.
    • SpartanErik, on 08/05/2008, -0/+2Nobody is stopping you from entering the market..

      Get in the game or get out
    • kigcoopa84, on 08/05/2008, -0/+3If you give corporations tax breaks they in turn can hire more people. That in turn helps the unemployment rate. that in turn creates more consumers. That in turn creates a better economy.
      Obama wants to raise cooperate taxes and taxes on people who make 32,000 a year or more. I don't know about you but someone making 32,000 a year hardly qualifies as middle class. But when corporations cut jobs because they can't afford the employees who do you think the first to go will be upper management or the guy in a cubical making 30k a year?
      Not to mention all the small business that will be destroyed by Obama....
      • letherial, on 08/05/2008, -1/+0do you think they will hire more people if they dont need them? if the middle..lower class (majority of people) dont have the money to buy anything, the cooperations have no need to hire more people.

        you mean to tell me that cooperations will hire people just to sit there and do nothing just cause they got a tax break.

        no you need to redistubte the wealth because the poor are going to spend spend spend, giving cooperations, who are now getting a increase in buisness a need to hire more people.

        have the last 8 years of this not proved a thing to you people, do you not see how this trickle down idea has failed completley, yoru only happy right now if your making alot of money.
      • kigcoopa84, on 08/05/2008, -0/+2So you solution is socialism? your crazy... Ya if we give all the poor people all the rich peoples money that they didn't earn they will most likely spend spend spend and end up in the same situation with there hands out.
        "if the middle..lower class (majority of people) don't have the money to buy anything, the cooperation's have no need to hire more people."
        So rising the taxes on people that make over 32K a year will help the average people spend more money? that's crazy!!!
        But if working people are taking home more of there check they have more money to spend and in turn businesses can hire more people.
        If you know anyone who owns a small business that does not rely on illegal immigrants ask them who they would like to see as our next president.
        And yes corporations will hire more people if they get a tax break.
        Please try to get an education or work hard and you will get a good job. It is unfortunate that some people make poor decisions but if you read the constitution you will see it is not the governments responsibility to bail them out every time. There are plenty of tax funded safety nets to provide people with the bare necessities. The rest is up to you.
  • garryw, on 08/04/2008, -22/+61Let me ad some logic and be dugg down

    1. Oil corporations don't (can't) donate to candidates
    2. Oil employees and execs have donated to both Obama and McCain
    3. kigcoopa84 is correct. Cutting taxes across the board for all companies does not say anything about oil favoritism.
    4. If McCain was in the pocket of big oil, he would cut taxes for big oil, not an across the board tax cut

    For all of you b^&hing about gas prices, how exactly does adding new taxes to oil (Obama's plan) help? Where is your logic? Please separate emotion from logic if you choose to reply.
    • LiberalKid, on 08/05/2008, -17/+12It helps to push for alternative energy, ultimately oil is not the answer to the world's energy needs. Taxing oil, to fund subsidies for alternative fuel research would help people to drive less and save fuel, but also obviously accelerate the speed at which we can leave oil.
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 08/05/2008, -4/+18In the meantime, the poor folks who are already suffering at the pump get to suffer even more. Inflation keeps driving the cost of everything up because it's more expensive to ship. Things keep getting worse, but hey, it'll drive us to more alternate fuels (as if prices aren't high enough to do that already). Brilliant!
      • johndavidjack, on 08/05/2008, -0/+14Lowering prices greatly helps our farming (which helps food prices), shipping (trucks/boats/etc), transportation, etc.

        Not everyone in America drives a Pruis. There will not be alternative energy sources for large vehicles that I mentioned above for awhile.

      • Shiftgood, on 08/05/2008, -11/+1Drill here Drill now so we can:

        1. See no results for around 8 years! (thats 2016)
        2. Get enough oil to last Americans less than a year and drop prices by a few cents!
        3. Net profits for oil companies in the billions!

        did you see what i did there? i was using sarcasim to illustrate my point.
      • TheGuruStud, on 08/05/2008, -5/+1If you think they'll even lower prices by a few cents no matter the cuts, you're crazy.
      • yoda133113, on 08/05/2008, -0/+10@Shiftgood
        After Bush lifted the ban on offshore oil drilling (which does absolutely nothing since Congress still is banning it) oil prices went down as speculation went down. If we were to actually allow drilling speculators would sell even more, the speculators are in it for a future profit if they see that oil prices down the road are going to drop because of greater supply, then they stop buying, and the price NOW drops.

        @TheGuruStud
        Actually historically and to this day oil companies such as Exxon etc. make only 8-10% profit, and when their costs go down they drop prices and continue to only make that much, lowering their taxes will save all of us money. And since most companies buy gas to transport or make their product prices for almost everything will go down a little.
      • radiofrequency, on 08/05/2008, -0/+8The U.S. is the largest generator of wind power in the world and oil companies, yes oil companies, invested in building that infrastructure. Despite all the supposed conflicts of interest between oil and alternative energy, you need to understand that oil companies are actually utilities whose goal is to provide energy. Oil executives will always pick the most efficient means to provide the energy. They spend R&D dollars to explore alternatives for competitive reasons and they spend those dollars much more effectively than the federal government.
    • libertao, on 08/05/2008, -6/+2To attempt to properly account for the externalities of the market transaction.
      • garryw, on 08/05/2008, -1/+2You are way too specific, please generalize your statement a little more.
      • libertao, on 08/05/2008, -1/+1@garryw

        He asked for the logic behind it. That would be my logic for taxing oil and funneling that to sources that might alleviate the various pollutants that burning oil emits.
    • P0peRatz0, on 08/05/2008, -18/+21Yes, you should be dugg down.

      Oil company "employees" (it includes the wives and children of the CEOs in order to get around the law) have given more than 2 million dollars to McCain. They have given less than 200k to Obama. Who do you think they would rather have as president? That's a tenfold difference, "garryw".

      Your "logic" is extremely flawed. Why would we cut taxes to corporations that have just had the most profitable quarter in their history. In the history of the world, in fact. When Ronald Reagan cut the subsidies to solar power that Jimmy Carter put in place in the 80s, he was putting a stake in the heart of the American middle class. The reason we pay 4 bucks a gallon today is because of what he started and what George Bush finished. And if McCain is elected it will get much worse.

      McCain actually has a history of giving favors to people who give him money. Just google "Keating Five" for an interesting history of John McCain. Practically the first thing he did when he got elected was corrupt.
      • megahan, on 08/05/2008, -5/+5Why doesn't that D.B. reply to your comment?
      • pullablank, on 08/05/2008, -5/+5This post needs more diggs.
      • SpartanErik, on 08/05/2008, -1/+4Well think about it: you're running a large oil company, it's obvious you're going to contribute to whichever candidate shares your views.

        It's just the luck of the draw, kid. If democrats supported tax cuts for oil companies to pass savings to consumers, it would be vice versa
      • garryw, on 08/05/2008, -1/+3I think you are missing the point. I dont really care who oil employees donate to. I dont care if they donate 100 trillion to McCain. The difference between me and you is that you vilify the producer of a product you consume. You don't understand supply and demand and therefore have an emotional response to price changes.

        Corporations exist to make money. If that strikes you as evil your best option is to relocate to a communist economy such as North Korea. There are no evil profits there.
      • Shiftgood, on 08/05/2008, -1/+3garryw,

        You make it sounds so simple "supply and demand" and that they're just another corporation just like any other... except:

        Target doesnt get millions (billions?) in tax payer subsidies
        If Heinz Ketchup decided to stop selling their product... America wouldnt turn into anarchy like it would if Oil companies stopped.
        We didnt go to war in the middle east for more Mach 3 razors.

        Calling Big Oil "just another corporation" looking out for itself and simply providing a service is a gross simplification of a very complex mechanism. I understand your point, but to break it down to "ha, your dumb for treating oil differently than the fruit stand down the road" is kind of wrong.
      • Ridgeliner7, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1"Getting around the law" ? That is pure ***** spin. The law was intended to be that way, so a family each contributing to who they want to, or to the same person, if that is what they want.

        Perhaps you feel individual rights are not important, but Congress felt otherwise.
    • Shiftgood, on 08/05/2008, -8/+4Forgive me because my recollection is blurry but McCain did something like this in the recent weeks:

      "We need off shore drilling"

      then he turned around right after that speech and cashed checks for a dick load of money from the oil execs (not the companies, that would be illegal).

      I'll try to find the link to the story, but yes, this did happen.
      • twomeyw23334, on 08/05/2008, -0/+10Ok, so as the U.S already has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, which is partially why it is so beneficial for U.S. companies to outsource work, should we raise taxes on ALL corporations even more!? Just to sock it to the evil oil companies.
        Don't change the subject. McCain stands for a corporate tax cut, this isn't pandering to big oil by any means. Obama is reaching big time. He's acting scared and trying to bring an emotional response out of his puppets based on flawed logic.
        If you think his logic is good then I suppose it would be OK for McCain to do a follow up ad proclaiming Obama wants to tax all non-oil corporations billions of dollars more than him, even solar corporations, as they ARE corporations.
        That's right, Obama wants to tax solar corporations more than McCain!
      • Shiftgood, on 08/05/2008, -6/+1You uhh, arent even countering my argument with what you just said.

        But in response, McCain wants to tax YOU more than Obama wants to tax YOU.

        And i get it, if Oil gets taxed, then they are going to pass it to its customers. But Obama wants to tax oil, then give that tax money to people to pursue alternative energies, essentially breaking that "we're still gonna pay for it" cycle. Get it? its helping the transition.

        Seriously, im baffled by the people that want to vote for McCain. Like the last 8 years of having a republican in the white house did us any good.

        I live in Palo Alto, probably one of the most wealthy and highly educated places in our country, if not the world, and all i see are Obama bumper stickers. All of these people that i live around own corporations, all of them. I walk by facebook, Azures, Sun, Google, Tesla, Apple, Microsoft and tons of other corporations every day, and they're all rooting for Obama. Everyone at stanford is rooting for Obama.

        My point isnt to gloat or feel superior. Its just to illustrate that people understand that the haves, are supported by the have nots and must reciprocate by paying more taxes than the individuals that support them. Only the truly corrupt and greedy want to widen this gap.

        That and the mid west. The fine fine mid west. who for some reason hate democrats because of a bloated government, yet still support bush... the biggest most wasteful government ever.

        if anyone is the sheep, its the people that cant see the reality of a situation... Its the ones that dont want to hear both sides of an argument (fox news cough cough). Its you buddy, you and your friends. The family that brought you up... its not reality that you're critisizing... you're just going a long with what everyone around you is thinking. Republicans do that... thatts their thing.. thats why they call it "conservative" aka. non changing, go with everyone else, sheep.
      • twomeyw23334, on 08/05/2008, -2/+6Wow you are so awesome!
        Any argument that is based on elitism sucks. If you have a good arguement than it should stand on its own. You telling me how many smart people agree with you isn't going to change my mind on issues, it will just make me think you are insecure and don't have real strong reasoning for your beliefs.

        Then to criticize my family, as if you know anything about them and their beliefs, you are truly and elitist pig. The fact that you imply I'm a puppet after bragging about how people who work at facebook agree with you is laughable. I'm not the one who needs to point to others to validate my opinions. Can't you see your hypocrisy? (and for your satisfaction, I live in New England).

        Trying to imply that the traditional definition of conservative equates to the political just further demonstrates your ignorance. What do you think about Australian liberals (who are the equivalent of American conservatives). And if you, as a liberal, means you just like change, wouldn't you agree with conservatives such as myself ever other time a new party gained power. After all, if liberals start running everything their way, you would eventually need change, which would be going towards conservatism! The idea of change for change sake is dumb. And I'll inform you, as a conservative, I'm not scared of the the Internets.

        If you and all your fellow rich elitists think that they should give to the poor than by all means do it. Of course, you never do, that's just your Democrat thing. You make pretend not to like the rich, though on average earn more than Republicans, make pretend to care more about the poor, though on average give less to charity and do less community service, make pretend to care more about the sick, though on average donate less blood, make pretend to support more taxes, though never willingly pay more, in short, total hypocrites. If you want to save the ....... fill in the blank, why don't all you smart assholes get together and DO IT for once instead of mandating / regulating / dictating everyone else's life, and somehow feeling superior all along the way. Don't tell me you are being held down by 'the man' because you already told me all the rich smug super intelligent pricks are on your side!

        as far as
        "essentially breaking that "we're still gonna pay for it" cycle. Get it? its helping the transition."
        That doesn't make any sense. You claim that simply taking more money from the oil companies will lead to higher prices, but then giving that money back to the consumer completes the circle, as if you just created some financial equivalent to the perpetual motion machine (which is impossible, though I'm sure you know that). You're making people pay more and then giving it back to them, so as it is a complete circle (as you acknowledge) the net return is zero. Of course, that would be assuming the government could collect the extra tax and redistribute to consumers with 100% efficiency. They obviously can't, so there would still be a net loss of money to the consumer. If you are going to brag about how intelligent you and like minded individuals are I would recommend not using such backwards arguments.
      • prahareturns, on 08/05/2008, -3/+1Shiftgood: I think these are the links you were looking for:

        http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/ ...

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/05/barack ...

      • Shiftgood, on 08/05/2008, -3/+2Dude, strike two, you totally missed the point... again.
      • twomeyw23334, on 08/05/2008, -1/+3LOL, good counter arguement.
      • Shiftgood, on 08/05/2008, -1/+2Its not a counter argument. Its me telling you you're not worth the time.

        You cant hold a decent argument because your comprehension of the english language seems to be askew. You just go into these rants that dont even equate to a counter argument. Or you take the original argument, misinterpret it and then counter against your misguided view of it.

        ex: I say McCain getting paid to make certain policies for oil and you answer "lower taxes!"
        ex: I say the mid-west is republican (not referring to you). And you say "Ha, im fron New England!"
        ex: I say Obama breaks the cycle by taking oil money and moving it to non oil money (quote: people to pursue alternative energies) you reply "Ha! its a closed cycle, the oil money goes back to the oil company"
        ex: I say, the corporations i see arent scared of Obamas taxes (giving examples like Apple, Azures and yes, facebook). and you say "You are an elitest pig CEO of those corporations".

        Do you see?

        peace.

      • dbizzell, on 08/05/2008, -0/+2Liberals want progress, not change. There is a big difference between those words. You need to tighten up your rhetoric twomey, the points you are making are pretty sloppy.
      • twomeyw23334, on 08/06/2008, -2/+0dbizzell, you want progress? How profound! As a conservative, I want regression! But why lecture me about change, perhaps you should contact Obama's people.

        Shiftgood
        I say McCain getting paid to make certain policies...
        I say that's *****. He has had that position, Obama just recently changed it, and has received over $300,000 from big oil employees, so is he getting paid for his position!? (I don't expect any consistency from you, or for you to even respond to any of my questions, a "strike 3 - followed by some name calling should suffice)!
        ex: I say the mid-west is republican
        Oh, that's all you were pointing out!? Well California is liberal, and full rich company owner geniuses. How is the state's fiscal policy doing? Yet you still support them! And no, I don't like or support Bush, nor do the majority of conservatives, as the polls suggest. Once again you are making up propaganda on the spot. At least my pointing out of Democrats' hypocrisy have statistics to back it up.
        ex: I say Obama breaks the cycle by taking oil money and moving it to non oil money...
        You are once again claiming that making people pay more and then giving them SOME of the money back is going to help alternative energy. What type of backward math is this!? I never said the money goes back to the oil companies, it goes in a circle, as you yourself said! With loss in government. Read my and your own damn statements. If I take a buck from you, and give you 70 cents, you didn't just magically gain 70 cents, you lost 30 to government employees. Who's the one wasting time here? I shouldn't have to spoon feed you my arguments, especially when they are based on your reasoning and common sense logic.
        ex: I say, the corporations i see arent scared of Obamas taxes..
        Do you want me to give examples of companies who would prefer a corporate tax break? In all seriousness (I want to gauge how much of a bubble you live in) do you honestly believe the majority of corporations would prefer NOT to have a corporate tax cut?

        Don't answer, make pretend I'm "not worth your time" (because you really don't have answers). Then keep repeating that to yourself when you go to sleep at night.
      • Shiftgood, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1McCain made 1.1 million in July alone 75 percent of which came after he said he wanted drilling in restricted areas. Obama made 300,000 all year... not after he changed positions... which he really didnt do.. all he said was "i dont support it, but if it will help pass a bipartisan energy bill, then i am willing to accept it"

        Regression is the opposite of progress. But it doesnt meant that what conservatism stands for. Conservatism stands for a continuity in law and order. Progression means the law and order change with the times and with new developments. Just because liberals are labeled as progressives doesn't mean conservatives are labeled as regressive. Thats just stupid. And thats what you argued... again missing the point, or skewing reality.

        If you really want me to go around and take pictures of the 3+ million dollar houses around my neighborhood and show you all the obama stickers, i will. But seriously, what a waste of time. They all know they are going to get taxed more, but they know its for the health of america, they know its to support america, they are americans and proud of it.

        McCains policies run up a 3 trillion dollar debt by the end of his first term, but big oil, among other corporations get a break and the 95 percent of people in the lower tax brackets have to foot the bill.

        Is your immediate family really not republican? seriously, im trying to gauge what kind of bubble you live in.
      • twomeyw23334, on 08/06/2008, -1/+1Your belief that McCain basis his position on money from big oil is purely tin foil. Most, if not all Republicans support more drilling, even non-politician Republicans. Are they all on big oil's paycheck? A typical Republican would support this type of thing, it's not like McCain suddenly took some crazy stance and then received boat loads of money. I could just as easily and with just as much evidence as you (absolutely non) claim that Obama's positions are dictated to him from the rich company owners in California. Do I believe that? No, I believe that the rich company owners in California probably donate to Obama because they share similar views, then again, I'm a logical non-tin foil type of person. And if you were working for a corporation and candidate A wanted to raise your taxes and candidate B wanted to allow you sell more product and extend the life of your business, which candidate do you suppose would receive more support from said corporation? Is this really surprising to you? I don't believe it, I have to much faith in you leftists. I think you know it makes perfect sense, you just pretend to be idiots and think OMG there is a conspiracy!!!! It's all an act.

        "Conservatism stands for a continuity in law and order...."
        Conservatives, in general, support smaller government with greater individual freedoms. I realize in some cases, government spending as one, the word may seem to apply in its traditional definition (and NO, I don't think Bush is a fiscal conservative) but don't confuse the traditional definition with the political, which is very hard to define in a short sentence, especially in a way all will agree on.
        I wasn't arguing that conservatives must be pro-regression, once again you're missing the point of my comments. I was simply displaying the absurdity of trying to wrap up a political belief in one word. Conservatives are definitely pro progress, much more so the you progressives on many issues. For example, today the United States receives almost 50% of its electricity from coal power plants, many of which are over 3 decades old! Why haven't we moved more to nuclear power as Ronald Reagan wanted or why don't we build newer much cleaner plants (some of the current plants operate at under 40% efficiency while the new ones operate up to and in some cases over 90%)? Because leftists and their anti-progress stance. I could go on with countless other examples.
        The one and only place where liberals are more progressive then conservatives is in social issues such as gay rights. I say liberals (not Democrats) because poll wise most Dems are still against things like gay marriage. I would consider myself probably somewhere between libertarian and conservative, but don't hold myself hostage to any particular world view, and so believe my observation on who is more pro-progress is reasonably fair.

        "McCain's policies run up a 3 trillion dollar debt by the end of his first term, but big oil, among other corporations get a break and the 95 percent of people in the lower tax brackets have to foot the bill."
        Historically cutting taxes has raised tax revenue (by stimulating the economy). So I'm not sure how you would argue raising tax revenue would cause a 3 trillion dollar debt or if you are going to argue we suddenly switched back over to the left side of the Laffer curve. I don't think McCain is going to raise taxes on the middle class to help offset corporate tax cuts, in fact, I'm pretty sure he specifically said he wouldn't. And I'm not going to bother explaining how corporate tax cuts would help "the little guy" and not just the evil corporations, it's to simple to understand and again believe you are just 'playing dumb.'
        As far as big oil "among other corporations" LOL! Yes, among EVERY other corporation!!!! That includes the solar panel corporation (who McCain would help more then Obama!)
        Do you realize that Obama wants to make health care more affordable! That means he is going to make health care more affordable for big oil execs, among other people, while 95% of the lower tax bracket foot the bill!
        Does that statement make any sense? No, but neither does yours. This leftist propaganda is purely emotionally driven. Step back and use your brain for a second. Emotion is a huge part of being human, and I understand that, but political policy shouldn't be based off it, especially 'hate' which is the worst of the bunch. The idea that something that benefits everybody should be avoided because included in that everybody is the 'evil oil corporation' is absurd. This is the leftist adage that if someone breaks their ankle in a marathon, the fair thing to do would be to take out a baseball bat and break everyone else's ankle. If you really believe that a corporate tax cut would be bad for America for fiscal reasons, then so be it, but base your argument on that, not on the evil oil corporations, who represent a small portion of ALL corporations.
        There is a clear reason why you and others (such as the Obama camp in this commercial) select ONLY oil corporations, because (right now, with the price of gas) it draws a negative emotion out of people. It gets the HATE!, HATE!, HATE! nerves firing. A commercial showing how Tom's Drywall was getting a tax or Nano-Solar was getting a tax break wouldn't be nearly as effective at creating hate.

        Some of my immediate family is Republican, some not (I have a large family). Though as you completely avoided all my questions, I don't see how you really deserve an answer. I think I've had enough spoon feeding, Good Day Sir.
    • Shiftgood, on 08/05/2008, -7/+6CNN.com

      "The Washington Post reported that McCain received $1.1 million from oil and gas industry executives and employees in June -- three-quarters of which came after he called for lifting the ban on offshore drilling on June 16"

      oil and gas has contributed 345,000 total for the entire year to obama.

      Its a free country, draw your own conclusions.
    • n00ptic, on 08/05/2008, -6/+6Fascinating. Your entire argument amounts to: McCain is in the pocket of big business in general, not just big oil. Oddly enough, that doesn't make him seem any better.
    • edchapel, on 08/05/2008, -1/+1The tax would presumably cover profits not reinvested in discovery or development of additional oil supply. Several of the oil companies have been using their large profits to buy back stock. This is not helping fuel prices in any way. I would not imagine that any tax would truly be collected because oil companies would prefer to reinvest the revenue in further development than let Congress spend it for them. In the long term, supply would theoretically go up as a result of this reinvestment. Assuming a compromise could be found, perhaps some of that capital could be spent to create a few more refineries to ease that artificial constraint as well.
  • Geraphix, on 08/04/2008, -14/+7Usually when Romney talks, all I hear is garbage. "That' dishonest...that's dishonest as you know." No, I don't know, you pompous tard. But I do know that you exaggerate, lie and speak of nonsense... oh wait isn't that being dishonest.
    • Ridgeliner7, on 08/04/2008, -4/+13See my post below, Geraphix, and follow all the links. Those well-known right-wingers, the NY Times, and ABC News, are all cited, with links, showing what a *****-hole liar Obama is. Don't feel too foolish...lots of us have had their turn being had by The Chosen One.
  • ImperialRome, on 08/04/2008, -14/+22If you expect Big Oil companies to invest in new technologies, and new sources of cleaner energy, how do you get them to do it? By offering them tax breaks. Big oil companies are not run by a cabal of Rockefellers, they are run by shareholders, who are big pensions, and therefore what benefits those big oil companies also benefits pensioners.
    Over half of Americans have significant amounts of their capital tied up in stocks, either through 401k or other private investment/retirement plans. Their money is invested in companies like this and they benefit as well, through better returns on investment and larger dividend checks. Benefitting American companies benefits Americans overall, and not just Big Oil.
    But I suppose if your a "progressive" thats not fair enough. In their eyes, the benefits shouldnt be doled out on arbitrary things like hard work or savvy investing, they should be doled out equally by a nanny state that first taxes the corporations and then spreads out the money, as though that money was created by the government and not by the industriousness of those working for the corporation.
    • cubicledrone, on 08/05/2008, -5/+6"Hard work" applies to employees too, and we've lost almost 500,000 jobs so far this year.

      And it's August.

      Wages have been stagnant since 1972.

      It's 2008.

    • johndavidjack, on 08/05/2008, -1/+4You need to remember, "we" deserve a share of the money from those evil rich people and successful companies...
      • ax8284, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1or we could get behind clean energy and snuff them out. Make ourselves the new rich people.
    • P0peRatz0, on 08/05/2008, -5/+2"If you expect Big Oil companies to invest in new technologies, and new sources of cleaner energy, how do you get them to do it? By offering them tax breaks."

      oh really? Did Apple get tax breaks to come up with the iPod? Did Google get tax breaks? Why exactly do oil companies need to be paid to get rich?

      And when you say "Benefiting American companies benefits Americans overall" are you forgetting that Exxon is no longer an "American company"? Can you say "British Petroleum"? Can you say "Citgo"? Can you say "Shell Oil"? They are GLOBAL companies who could care less about the welfare of the American people. They've got us over a barrel of oil and they're going to squeeze us dry. And chumps like you, "Imperial Rome" are cheerleaders for them. Doesn't really sound like you care much about America and Americans for that matter.
    • megahan, on 08/05/2008, -4/+3This is the standard faulty, specious argument employed by apologists of the Corporations. Please. Have you any idea of what you are actually talking about?
    • ax8284, on 08/05/2008, -2/+1Ok.. so oil companies aren't going to invest in clean energy. they are OIL companies. so you fail for that. Also, you fail because you are suggesting that it is Ok to continue supporting the reason for continual military aggression in the middle east by investing and profiting off of their corrupt way of business rather than supporting and investing in clean energy. One last thing, you failed to mention that this "nanny state" you speak of is the same entity that has provided military efforts on certain occasions in certain countries (Iraq) to promote their continual profiteering, which by the way has cost us TAX PAYERS billions of dollars! so you fail miserably.
  • Ridgeliner7, on 08/04/2008, -18/+18
    “Obama Voted For Bush/Cheney Energy Bill, Written In Secret By Industry Lobbyists”
    - New York Times

    OBAMA’S SUPPORT FOR BUSH/CHENEY ENERGY POLICY

    “Sen. Obama voted for the 2005 Energy Bill, written in secret by Vice President Cheney and the energy lobby. Thomas Friedman referred to the bill as “the sum of all lobbies.” U.S. PIRG noted that the bill’s “heavy tilt toward big oil companies reflects the influence of Exxon Mobil and other oil companies on policy-makers in Washington, DC.”

    The Washington Post editorialized that the bill was a “piñata of perks for energy industries.” Indeed, the bill contained $6 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry and $12 billion to the nuclear power industry.

    Although Sen. Obama voted for the legislation, he has spoken as if he opposed it on the campaign trail, criticizing it repeatedly. At a presidential debate he said “You can look at how Dick Cheney did his energy policy…he met with oil and gas companies forty times, and that’s how they put together our energy policy.” He’s attributed the failure of our current energy policy to Congress’s “failure to stand up to the lobbyists.”

    Sen. Obama’s rhetoric blasting the policies of Vice President Dick Cheney and energy lobbyists can be stirring. But Obama’s actions haven’t matched his words.” He later offered what is becoming pretty standard for Obama, the lame excuse that he voted for the bill because nothing stronger was offered.

    Neither John McCain or Hillary Clinton supported that Bush/Cheney bill. Barack "The Chosen On" Obama did.

    'Nuff said.

    http://ridgeliner7.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/clinto ...
    • P0peRatz0, on 08/05/2008, -6/+5Why not link to the congressional record instead of some blog? Obama did NOT support the Bush/Cheney bill. You are lying.
    • n00ptic, on 08/05/2008, -4/+2Do you realize that you're referring to the bill that created the largest ever government investment in alternative and renewable energy? Do you realize that Obama was one of the Democrats who fought to get those provisions added, and the resulting bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support? Or are you just another stupid ditto-head who can't actually read a bill for himself?
  • Newportbeachguy, on 08/05/2008, -13/+37Call me nuts, but I actually agree with Romney.
    • faceless323, on 08/05/2008, -6/+3http://www.nuthealth.org/images/nut_splash.jpg
    • bicyclethief, on 08/05/2008, -7/+5http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n40/rstuart88/o ...
      • btraxx, on 08/05/2008, -0/+4what is tha... OH MY
      • Carnage6669, on 08/05/2008, -1/+5mind adding a NSF after that .... I almost Got in trouble
      • CanadaMan87, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1lol, nice background for a pair of nuts.
    • toastybeast, on 08/05/2008, -7/+1you make me sick.
      • Latentk, on 08/05/2008, -0/+2And you should never have been born.... wait, how exactly do we progress anything by stating these facts?
    • prisoner24601, on 08/05/2008, -5/+2It's actually disorienting for me too. Frankly, I think that for Republicans like me, this is a perfect example of what utter disarray the party has been in. There's one guy who actually seems capable of "doing the math" here but every time I hear him speak I just keep having this utter disconnect because I know he's a Mormon too.

      He wasn't just a "the church at the end of my street happened to be Mormon and that's where we went as kids" guy either. He was *literally* a "white shirt and tie knocking on doors I'm here to tell you that Jesus came to AMERICA (of COURSE it just HAD to be AMERICA right? Couldn't possibly be egotistical to think God had to come to MY country could it?) in 600 AD and honest, it's the truth even though this society was so incredibly vast and wealth that it wrote it's history on GOLD PLATES and yet somehow disappeared so totally in a few centuries that not a SINGLE shred of archeology has ever been found" two-year missionary in France.

      What's funny is how Liberal Democrats will say "private issues don't matter" (ala defense-of-Bill-Clinton) but the Republican party has somehow failed to grasp that the core of the Republican base DOESN'T think that way.

      Now McCain is giving serious thought to taping the immense Mormon wallet (both Romney's and by extension the rest of the church) by making him the VP candidate. I can hardly think of a better way to make sure the traditional Republican base loses interest in getting involved, but the party just can't seem to grasp this at all. It's utterly bizarre.

      Don't we have any guys who have some basic business skills, are relatively young, can deliver a speech on TV that is halfway motivational and also aren't a member of a cult? Are we really asking too much here?
      • Carnage6669, on 08/05/2008, -1/+4way to change to topic from politics to religion.... because that's what is important here
      • hixxy, on 08/05/2008, -0/+3You are extremely ignorant and not very well informed.
      • prisoner24601, on 08/05/2008, -3/+2"You are extremely ignorant and not very well informed."

        Isn't that redundant?... and redundant? ;-)

        In all seriousness though, what part of either Mormonism's claims about the supposed Nephite society in North American, or Romney's involvement in Mormonism do you dispute?

        I'm very bothered by the idea of having a Vice President that "believes" things that "feel in his heart to be true" even when facts to the contrary are available. I don't believe that someone can have one method of assessing truth for one part of their life (religion) that is irrational and then consistently use another method in other areas of life. If Romney can fall for Joseph Smith's lies because he WANTS to believe they are true, then why can't he'll fall for Kim Il Jong's lies if he wants to believe those too? His method of assessing fact is fundamentally faulty.

        Much of our society compartmentalizes religion and keeps it in a little box for Christmas, funerals and weddings. That's not a healthy way of life.
      • Swivelstick, on 08/05/2008, -2/+1Isn't that tautology or is it terets but why prisoner2xxxx is being dug down is beyond me or maybe the connections are to tenuous for many to grasp.
      • YoctoYotta, on 08/05/2008, -0/+3@Swivelstick
        He's being dug down because he's insulting one religion while participating in another. In a conversation about politics. Sorry for the cliche, but talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
      • hurdboy, on 08/05/2008, -0/+3As an atheist who normally votes Republican, Romney's religious beliefs don't bother me in the least. Golden tablets in New York, when compared with original sin, or the Catholic Church's sudden abandonment of the concept of limbo doesn't seem all that off kilter.

        On the policy side, Romney is exactly what the US needs right now.
  • spyd3rweb, on 08/05/2008, -13/+31When you tax a corporation, you're really taxing its customers.
    • bicyclethief, on 08/05/2008, -6/+4Only if the corporation decides to pass those taxes on.

      You falsely make it seem like all corporations are at the mercy of the government or its customers.

      • vexingmodstwo, on 08/05/2008, -1/+5OMG. Why wouldn't they pass on as much as they could? Lemme guess, English major? No, wait, philosophy, right?
      • cubicledrone, on 08/05/2008, -4/+0At least English majors can spell.
      • bicyclethief, on 08/05/2008, -3/+2Example: If the market does not allow it, corporations DO NOT pass on what they're taxed. They would rather accept making a smaller profit than risk losing customers by overcharging.

        FYI: "Snarkiness" doesn't substitute for intelligence.
      • PolishLogic, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1"If the market does not allow it"

        We're not talking Starbucks coffee or blu-ray players here, we're talking oil.
    • mikesoba, on 08/05/2008, -3/+3And you think they will pass on tax savings to you? Obviously you aren't an executive for a large corporation or you would know how ridiculous your assumption is.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 08/05/2008, -0/+2With more wiggle room, competition would increase and the gas companies would drive the price down themselves.
      • spyd3rweb, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1Pass on savings, probably not, but they're not going to pass on the cost of the tax either.
      • cubicledrone, on 08/05/2008, -1/+0Gas prices are being driven down. LOL

        Check please.
    • krnldmp, on 08/05/2008, -4/+1Unless there's competition.
      • dexter411, on 08/05/2008, -0/+3Wrong. All the competitors pass the price down, as well. You think the shareholders of Exxon would take a loss of $60 billion lying down?
  • badnewshotel, on 08/05/2008, -17/+26Thinkprogress and Huffington, what will they do when Barry Obama loses?
    • slvrbullet87, on 08/05/2008, -6/+13Bitch for the next 4 years... kinda like they have been doing for the last 2
    • megahan, on 08/05/2008, -8/+3What is the color of the sky in your little world?
  • ObamAmerican48, on 08/05/2008, -22/+13Romney is kissing ass because he wants to be McCain's veep.

    He needs to get back to his wives.
    • Vespa299, on 08/05/2008, -1/+8It is remarks like this that spread misconceptions about mormons.

      Romney is an economic genius and I would like to see him as VP.

      • FGJfighter, on 08/05/2008, -5/+2errr.... I wouldn't call him an economic genius. As a native of MA I can say he hasn't really helped us economically.
  • ErickStevenson, on 08/05/2008, -12/+5LOL this ad is "dishonest" and "Below the belt"? hahhaahaha
  • Drogoganor, on 08/05/2008, -15/+17Yes, big oil which has fought against new refinery capacity, carefully controlled the supply of oil, fought MPG regulations and sucked up to various dictators - they're the ones who need tax breaks and offshore drilling to help us, the citizens, get cheaper oil.

    Forgive me if I'm not that gullible and stupid.
    • Drogoganor, on 08/05/2008, -5/+12Quick! Truth! Bury it!
    • megahan, on 08/05/2008, -0/+3We are talking about a resource that is FINITE. The oil is RUNNING OUT. Unless these oil corporations have TIME MACHINES there is NO WAY prices of oil are going to get cheaper.

      I am just about sick of all this.
    • SkittlesUSA, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1What you are telling me is Oil companies fought regulation after regulation after regulation.

      Why shouldn't they? What business or power does the government have to go to a business and say that they can not sell cars under X miles per gallon? What if the government went to McDonalds and said that they could not sell food above X numbers of calories?

      Why do liberals only care about "personal freedoms" when it involves poisoning your body with marijuana but think the government has the business to tell businesses what they can and can not sell, or even what bag you can shop with at a grocery store.

      Guess what?

      Economic freedom is a freedom too.

      And I will forgive you for being both gullible and stupid, for following your other mindless leftists into irrationally hating something.

      "B-b-b-b-uuut the Big Oil companies made money!!!!"

      Yes, that tends to happen when a business provides a popular or needed product.
  • fuzzynyanko, on 08/05/2008, -5/+21Should we be cutting taxes with the deficit so high?
    • Drogoganor, on 08/05/2008, -5/+7No
    • ThisistheEdge, on 08/05/2008, -4/+14Yes. And cutting spending while we're at it.
    • dexter411, on 08/05/2008, -3/+12If we want to increase taxes just to pay for more government programs, yes.
    • mikesoba, on 08/05/2008, -1/+2Yes, we should be cutting taxes to support the war effort.
    • Carnage6669, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1I say tell congress to stop taking loans from the Federal Reserve then we can talk about taxes and spending
    • bhavinp, on 08/05/2008, -0/+2I say take that tax money and buy thousands of pineapples to shove up all politicians asses.
  • vexingmodstwo, on 08/05/2008, -18/+28Mitt Romney is absolutely correct.

    Obama and his socialist handlers are clueless when it comes to how business works. Maybe he should have held an executive position in something other than at the community center.
    • Drogoganor, on 08/05/2008, -10/+8With the biggest national debt in history, right-wingers have no business acting condescending about business prowess.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 08/05/2008, -3/+11All the more reason to get the government OUT of business, doofus.
      • cubicledrone, on 08/05/2008, -5/+2Deregulation works so well doesn't it? I don't really need to list examples.
      • McHoffa, on 08/05/2008, -0/+2"Deregulation works so well doesn't it? I don't really need to list examples. "
        because regulation is working out wonderfully isn't it?
    • cubicledrone, on 08/05/2008, -6/+1How business works: fire everyone and give all the money to the gleaming smile. Then the taxpayers bail you out.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 08/05/2008, -1/+7Communism doesn't work dude.
      • cubicledrone, on 08/05/2008, -3/+1 "Trade payroll for a salad bar" doesn't work, dude.

    • megahan, on 08/05/2008, -7/+1Oh, random guy of the Internet! I am so glad that you have deigned to tell us how business really works! Thank you for your wisdom!

      Tell me, Rockefeller, if you really "know how business works," what the hell are you doing wasting your time on DIGG?
    • koob, on 08/05/2008, -1/+5This comment made my day.
  • BonersMilloy, on 08/05/2008, -18/+6Ok romney, oh look, it's your great mormon spacegod!
  • tajitj, on 08/05/2008, -18/+5Please McCain pick Romney as you VP.
    A flip flopping, mormon. That would be great.

    • heliox, on 08/05/2008, -1/+9Why does his religion have anything to do with it?
  • dexter411, on 08/05/2008, -7/+9FTA: "Ensuring that corporations pay dramatically fewer taxes is an integral part of McCain’s regressive tax plan that skews its benefits heavily toward the wealthy and offers little for the poor and middle class."

    From today's Wall Street Journal: "Between 2003 and 2007, Exxon paid $64.7 billion in U.S. taxes."

    Which do you think is more provocative? Cutting the corporate tax rate is a fantastic idea (in fact, I'm for eliminating it completely). This idea that corporations pay taxes at all is ridiculous, anyway. Considering the 20% or so of embedded taxes in the price of everything we buy, you tell me why we're doing so badly against cheap crap from China.
    • cubicledrone, on 08/05/2008, -3/+3What kind of taxes? Sales? Payroll? Property? Inventory?
      • dexter411, on 08/05/2008, -0/+3See: VAT. It illustrates perfectly how corporate and payroll tax moves directly into the price paid by the consumer for a product.
      • cubicledrone, on 08/05/2008, -4/+0Sorry, chunky. The article said U.S. taxes. The U.S. doesn't have a value added tax.

        Fail.
      • dexter411, on 08/05/2008, -0/+4Wow. You are honestly so stupid that I can't believe you're real. I'm well aware that we don't have a VAT, *****.

        I told you to look up VAT (i.e. because you've probably never heard of it before) to illustrate how much of a tax burden is built into the manufacturing and sales of any product. In our case, it exists in the form of corporate, payroll, and Social Security taxes.
    • Drogoganor, on 08/05/2008, -6/+1Wanna post their profit figure? The biggest profit in history?
      • vexingmodstwo, on 08/05/2008, -3/+9Just stop. Look up the term "profit margin" and then check out how low it is for oil companies. The "biggest profit" in history is the dollar amount because the price is high. But their profit margins aren't that high compared to other industries.
      • ThisistheEdge, on 08/05/2008, -2/+7Exxon, as a single company, will set a record this year it is estimated. It will be the first time in US history that a single company will pay more in income taxes than the bottom 50% of individual tax payers. Record profits=record taxes.
      • cubicledrone, on 08/05/2008, -6/+0Look up the term "layoffs" and check how many empty houses there are in this country.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 08/05/2008, -0/+4So you're solution, cubic, would be to make things worse by increasing the price of everything? Great plan, moron.
      • cubicledrone, on 08/05/2008, -4/+0One company pays more in taxes than half the country? Now if you can't see the problem there, you have some serious reading comprehension issues.

        Oh, and that's a fragrant load of *****, by the way.
      • dexter411, on 08/05/2008, -0/+5"One company pays more in taxes than half the country? Now if you can't see the problem there, you have some serious reading comprehension issues."

        ... So you support lowering their taxes, too? Good.

        Their profit is high in number, but not high (at all) in percentages. The 10% profit margin of Exxon is nothing compared to the 500%+ for some top computer and software companies.
      • cubicledrone, on 08/05/2008, -4/+0Here's what you missed. Probably because you didn't major in a degree that required reading.

        Half the country makes so little money that one company can pay more in taxes than all of them put together.

        Thanks for making my point.
      • dexter411, on 08/05/2008, -1/+4Yeah, physics students never had to read.

        "Half the country makes so little money that one company can pay more in taxes than all of them put together."

        1.) So? I honestly don't see what's wrong with this considering that only a small group of people work hard and intelligently enough to make great money.

        2.) What do you propose be done?
    • cubicledrone, on 08/05/2008, -6/+1Are you suggesting cutting the corporate tax rate would result in a 20% drop in the price of everything?
      • vexingmodstwo, on 08/05/2008, -1/+10That question illustrates perfectly why leftists should stick to treehugging and let the big boys handle the finances.
      • cubicledrone, on 08/05/2008, -7/+0Figured you wouldn't answer the ***** question. Also avoided the "what kind of taxes" question. Now what was the last big example of great handling of finances? Oh, that's right, mortgages!
      • dexter411, on 08/05/2008, -0/+5Yep. Absolutely. I suggest that cutting the corporate tax rate would result in (on average) a 20% drop in the price of everything.
      • dexter411, on 08/05/2008, -0/+5PS: Not just corporate tax. Payroll, too.
      • yoda133113, on 08/05/2008, -0/+5I say we cut all the taxes that a corporation pays, corporations by their very nature don't pay taxes, their owners/shareholders do, their employees do, or their customers do, the corporation just collects it from them and gives it to the government.
  • troylee17, on 08/05/2008, -11/+19Shocked!

    Has the "I only support Obama, he is our Lord savior" crew gone on vacation? Where are the digg downs?

    I am not a die-hard republican but I have been supporting what Romney, kigcoopa84, garryw, and ImperialRome have stated.

    Tax cuts for oil companies (although not STRICTLY oil co's) help shareholders and consumers. The exec's at the top are going to make a lot of money either way, and there is a reason for that. While I'm indifferent between Obama and McCain, I personally think Obama has been blowing smoke up most of your arses. As a CPA, I'm sorry but Obama is wrong with his tax plan and will not do much good other than put our baby boomer parents in the poor house. I wish to God Ron Paul could win, but not a chance.

    My vote will be written in: Stephen Colbert! (Frank Barry for VP)

    • cubicledrone, on 08/05/2008, -6/+0The only thing we manufacture is layoffs.
    • megahan, on 08/05/2008, -5/+4Can we PLEASE stick with the issues, and lay off the INANE "Obama is our lord savior" comments? Seriously. If you have a point, make it.

      You have your views, I have mine, there's absolutely no need to belittle other people because you disagree with them.
      • yoda133113, on 08/05/2008, -0/+2You might be a sane Obama supporter, but that doesn't change the fact that many people seem to have the attitude that "Obama is our Lord and Savior" on the other side many people (though less) have the opinion that he is the "Anti-Christ." I personally think both groups are crazy.
  • southwestnut, on 08/05/2008, -2/+4My goodness,

    I have seen this story on the up board at least 5 time tonight!!!!

    So many duplicates!
  • dunderballer, on 08/05/2008, -3/+11Romney plainly pointed out that that McCain does not support a SPECIAL DEAL to oil companies but supports corporate tax reductions across the board which is absolutely true. Just because I am an Obama supporter doesn't mean I can't view campaign issues objectively. It is unfortunate that thinkprogress can't either. Obama did stoop on this ad by not clarifying that it was employees of oil companies that donated the funds and by implying that the tax break was just for oil companies rather than for all corporations--particularly those in the higher brackets. While it is true that McCain stooped to releasing misleading negative ads first, and Romney falsely implied that Obama was the first to do so, neither excuses Obama from doing so.
    • Archimboldo, on 08/05/2008, -0/+3It is people like you that lend credibility to the Obama camp, not the hysterics. I am torn between digging you up for looking at things soberly and not digging you up because it would seem partisan of me to just pounce on anything against Obama.

      I guess they cancel out.

      Well formed arguments either for Obama or against McCain only prod thoughtful Republicans to become more thoughtful themselves. And well formed arguments against Obama, should prod thoughtful Democrats to come up with better arguments.
  • soot, on 08/05/2008, -9/+5I was watching David Schuster earlier and there were two strategists on the show debating the energy topic. The Democratic strategist was reiterating Obama's case for a concerted federal and private sector investment in alternative fuels funded by a tax on the record windfall profits that Exxon and the other oil companies are making right now, and the Republican guest basically tried to counter his point with the same tired line: "The Democrats want to tax our way out of this mess!"

    I'm sick of them treating Big Oil like they're the American consumers. I say absolutely tax them and spend the profits where they count.
  • ErickStevenson, on 08/05/2008, -9/+4Atleast we all know who wants to be VP for McCAin... haha "dishonest" and "below the belt" coming from McCAin supporters? LOL
  • rowjimmy, on 08/05/2008, -4/+6to all the computer-chair economists claiming all McCain wants is free-market economics that of course works, you really need to pay closer attention to what the Republican (and, to an almost equal extent, the Democratic) party has done since Reagan. There was an interesting guest on Fresh Air today, Thomas Frank, the author of "The Wrecking Crew," who quite brutally exposes the myth that modern conservatism = super-efficient free-market policies. Without even going into the question of whether free-market economics really serves all the people the best of any system of organization (which is a claim largely unsubstantiated by history) it's plain and simple PR machinery that people still equate the modern Republican party with Friedmann-style free-market economic policies. If you're interested and missed it, check out the podcast here - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ...
    • SkittlesUSA, on 08/05/2008, -1/+2"Without even going into the question of whether free-market economics really serves all the people the best of any system of organization (which is a claim largely unsubstantiated by history)"

      The United States is a little over 200 years old and it is the most powerful nation the world has ever known, thanks to the free market. Many nations have been around for thousands of years and none have grown like the United States. Even Communist China does not have a communist economy.

      Thanksgiving was to celebrate the implementation of capitalism, because when people had to keep what they grew for themselves guess what??? They put more effort in to it because they got to keep what they made.

      "Those who shall not work, shall not eat," saved the colonies. etc. etc.

      If you think history has not proved the free market works, you may want to apply for a job at the Ministry of Truth.


      • rowjimmy, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1I didn't say it didn't "work" - I said that I don't think history substantiates the claim that it serves all the people the best - emphasis on all. Capitalism has gigantic winners - because it has gigantic losers. The "free-market" capitalism of the west could never have worked without a 3rd world to provide resources, labor, land, and markets.

        And the choices aren't just "free-market capitalism" (by the by, if you think that is what the US/the West currently promotes you really need to enroll in some economics courses or look up the word "nepotism" in the dictionary) and "communism" (wtf does that even mean? marxism? maoism? stalinism? leninism? gramscism? etc etc etc).

        anyway, my point isn't to argue whether or not free-market capitalism serves the most people the best, but rather that what both parties have promoted for the past 30+ years is nothing close to true free-market capitalism
  • LunaticFringe, on 08/05/2008, -10/+3As someone coming from the state where Romney let $14+ billion slip away to corrupt contractors in the biggest debacle in the state's history and causing the third largest city to fold in on itself in bankruptcy as a result, I say he shouldn't even be allowed to open his ***** mouth.

    A single recently completed tunnel cost $14.6 billion, and it's already collapsing in on itself. Woo.

    Oh, and Romney called the thing with the tunnel a 'tar baby'.
    • pullablank, on 08/05/2008, -0/+3I didn't know about any of this, very interesting. Have any good links?
    • barktwiggs, on 08/05/2008, -0/+3I think you're talking about the multi-decade Big Dig boondoggle Romney inherited from corrupt Democrats and proceeded to fix. Romney lobbied to have the MTA head removed but was only able to do so after someone was killed by negligent contractors cutting corners.
      Also, from wikipedia: In contemporary usage, "tar baby" refers to any "sticky situation" that is only aggravated by additional contact.
    • garryw, on 08/05/2008, -0/+2Lunatic buddy, the big dig was not Romney's. go read about it before you post
  • toastybeast, on 08/05/2008, -7/+5How do these asshats get away with this stuff? CNN needs to grow some balls.
  • tufftugg, on 08/05/2008, -8/+4Mr.Bush's New World Order, enjoying it?
  • krnldmp, on 08/05/2008, -7/+4Who asked Romnhoid in the first place?
  • Evanmontegarde, on 08/05/2008, -6/+5And Mittens continues clamoring for that VP slot. I hope McCain chooses him, the backlash would be delicious.
  • YvesKlein, on 08/05/2008, -2/+7Ok. Increase the tax on oil then. Who do you think pays the taxes? The oil companies? Sorry, but like it or now it's the consumer who ends up paying in the end. Corporations don't pay taxes, consumers do.
  • batmanz, on 08/05/2008, -2/+8Well, Obama would be preferrable, but if McCain has to win, lets hope he chooses Romney as VP, then dies.
    • Qtip42, on 08/05/2008, -3/+3No, lets hope they both do because I wouldn't want either of those fascists to be running the country. Talk about the worst choices anyone could make. Romney knows absolutely nothing about this country. He'd consult his lawyers before consulting the constitution....What the hell does that tell you about that smug neocon?
    • rexblade, on 08/05/2008, -4/+1Oh yeah Romney would be a corporate wet dream. That nice phony smile Kevlar hair and he flip flops like hes in the Olympics, and is already in the pocket of the CFR. Win win situation there.
    • singularityv, on 08/05/2008, -3/+1Dude, Romney is a bigger flip-flopper than John Kerry.

      He was a serious leftist as governor of Massachusetts. He even passed a totalitarian health care bill. Then he runs for president and toes the Republican party line. I don't know about you, but that kind of flip-flopping scares the ***** out of me.
  • brightshadow525, on 08/05/2008, -4/+10So... When McCain has an ad that compares Obama to celebrities, Digg flips upside down and makes a complete joke of it....

    When Obama makes a DISHONEST ad about McCain, it's perfectly okay. Hooray for Digg! /sarcarm
  • Qtip42, on 08/05/2008, -6/+3Romney is a piece of ***** talking head. He is just another neocon republican and his original agenda was little different than mccains.
  • LoneRanger85, on 08/05/2008, -3/+6Oil companies make eight cents on the dollar. Would you be able to run a private business like that? It is the GOVERNMENT that is making windfall profits on oil. They get about half of oil company "profits." Taxes are too high already. This Marxism on the left is irrational and dangerous.
  • Bkaufman, on 08/05/2008, -3/+4Rush Limbaugh said it best:

    RUSH: Now, let me go back to Pelosi and Obama and this whole energy business. As you know, one of the constant refrains, and Obama made mention of it today in his energy plan speech, of which there was not one plan to develop new energy, there wasn't one solid thing that would lower prices, increase supply, not one. This was a speech designed to blame America for the problems that we have, and he came up with a new platitude: "We need to end the age of oil in our time." Oil is now officially a villain, it is a demon, it is causing world destruction, we are the number-one user, and therefore we need to be the number-one most punished. That's the Democrat Party platform. They keep using this phrase: "Even if we started drilling, why, it would be seven years." I get so sick and tired of hearing this because it's so easily refutable, and people have been refuting it ever since they started using it. Well, if Clinton hadn't vetoed ANWR back in 1995 or '94 we'd have that flowing now. You have to start somewhere. Nothing happens instantaneously and of course all these grandiose schemes for alternative energy and renewable energy, that's not going to happen inside of 27 years, to the point that it replaces oil or 57 years. Just isn't going to happen. But yet we gotta start on that immediately and while we're starting on it we need to get rid of oil at the same time.

    If you try to follow logically what these people say, you can tie your brain into a knot. How is it that people like The Messiah, Barack Obama, who tell us that the whole problem with oil prices is the speculators -- they go back and forth, speculators, now we're back to Big Oil being the evil ones. They say, though, that it would make no sense to drill because supplies would not increase until some speculative time in the future, whether it's seven years or ten years or a thousand, it doesn't matter, the fact is they are speculating when they tell us, if we start drilling today, there won't be any oil for X-number of years, they themselves are speculating. Why is speculation only a problem when it involves capitalists making money on predictions about supplies in the market? When speculation, though, involves liberals actually reducing supplies and increasing prices, then speculation is suddenly okay. I mean, look at it this way. Shouldn't the people who are truly worried about speculators be the first people to say, drill, drill, drill? 'Cause all they're doing is speculating. Seven years, ten years, whatever. They don't know that. In fact, some oil companies will tell you they can get it out much sooner than that. We also, ladies and gentlemen, got a demand for equal time from Nancy Pelosi, we have granted it.
    • megahan, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1OK, so it's just good to turn over the protected lands of the United States to private corporations for profit, which the consumer will never see a dime of -- nothing, no dividends, nothing.

      Think of it as your BACK YARD. Would you allow an oil company to come in, drill in your back yard and then CHARGE YOU for the oil?

      Why is it that this doesn't make sense? (I'm asking, I'm not trying to score a rhetorical point).
      • xcspyder, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1You really need to do some research into how a private corporation gets the access to the protected lands. Don't worry they are paying dearly for it.
    • Bkaufman, on 08/05/2008, -1/+2We don't "turn over" anything to the oil companies. The oil companies buy the land from the American tax payer at an absurd markup. We then tack ***** (I don't know the exact percentage, but its high) of sales tax onto oil. The oil industry brings in billions and billions of dollars to our federal government (its not their fault that we waste the money). If land I owned had oil on it, I'd be jumping up and down with joy. The oil companies would pay me millions for the land and I'd never have to work another day in my life. You, along with most liberals, have no understanding of how these companies function.
  • ouorama, on 08/05/2008, -0/+7http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/07/exxon-posts-re ...
    “Exxon paid (or collected) almost $3 in taxes ($32.361 billion) for every $1 in profits ($11.68 billion), see chart above.”

    I'm getting sick of this oil bashing ***** in the media and in digg. People only report the profits made by Exxon and never how much Exxon paid in taxes. The US government makes more than twice the amount as Exxon makes for every gallon of gasoline.
    • megahan, on 08/05/2008, -3/+3Nevertheless, you have to admit: those profits are enormous. Let's lay aside the "blue state -- red state" ***** and admit that radical greenies are no more noble than radical oil-corporation CEOs. Let's seriously stop the divisive nonsense and try to find some kind of solution.

      Some type of compromise is necessary. We are, after all, Americans first. (Consider Lincoln: "A house divided against itself cannot stand").
      • PolishLogic, on 08/05/2008, -0/+2Yes, those profits are enormous. Is that wrong? The profits are enormous, but they're nowhere near the amount of the taxes they already pay.

        Why is it that every other industry is allowed to make a "sky's the limit" profit and can mark up their product by 100% (in some cases), but the oil companies get bashed for having a meager 8-10% profit margin, and has had that profit margin for years.

        It's a laughable argument and it keeps on getting made. That's what creates the divisiveness.
  • radiofrequency, on 08/05/2008, -3/+8The Obama campaign's ad doesn't warrant a response from Romney or anyone. The democrat's energy plan is to tax Americans into the age before electricity and waste money on the types of people who think there's a market for charging for the air we breathe in the interest of "saving the environment".
    • rexblade, on 08/05/2008, -4/+1Isn't McCain also for the "cap and trade" scam? Last I checked he was.
  • bernielomax, on 08/05/2008, -2/+2Ourama, a biased blog for facts?

    from:
    http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/07/exxon-posts-re ...

    On Exxon having 40% US Tax, it is completely wrong.
    http://www.jacksonforest.com/Exxon.htm
    """"These numbers can be compared to 2007 revenue $370 billion, and net pre-tax income of $70,400 million ($70.4 billion).
    Little U.S. tax is paid because most of the profits are attributed to overseas operations; so even though Exxon is a U.S. company, our tax laws don't require payment of taxes on profits of overseas operations."""

    So leave the economics to people who care to check the facts before they try to convince people. I am expecting more from the obama camp, but the mccain camp is abusing the gut feelings of people.
  • 700c26, on 08/05/2008, -0/+3These so-called corporate windfall taxes are the most absurdly stupid tax laws. We seriously want to tax the best performing companies more? It is a bass-ackwards anti-incentive that will hurt our country. In today's global economy there isn't much that holds companies in one place or another. If we keep f'ing it up Exxon could always just say 'screw-it' and move to another country. Did any of you Huffington heads catch the 60 minutes report on Dubai last night? They've been growing like crazy because of low or no corporate taxes. What else does Dubai have? Oh nice little things like: free health care to everyone, free college education to citizens, the largest concentration of planned LEED buildings in the world, and one of the highest standards of living.
    • rexblade, on 08/05/2008, -1/+2You mean like Halliburton did? They give companies tax free status for 50 years. Also probably because if they stayed in America sooner or later we would be at the door with pitch forks and torches. I didn't catch that I'm very curious to see where these war profits are going to though. They also have some extremely oppressive policies, any amount of marijuana found on you is a mandatory 4 years in prison minimum.
  • drape, on 08/05/2008, -2/+1Its amazing how difficult it is to get at the truth of things with secondary information.
  • BotchaMcCoola, on 08/05/2008, -5/+1Tell us Mitt. Was your father wrong to oppose the Vietnam War?
  • ramiro, on 08/05/2008, -1/+8BURIED for being dishonest and below the belt spam from ThinkBackwards.org
  • singularityv, on 08/05/2008, -0/+4Why the ***** are you people singling out the oil companies? This tax break applies to all businesses, not just oil companies.

    It's like saying that an across-the-board cut to the personal income tax is a tax reduction for people you don't like.
  • truck87bp, on 08/05/2008, -2/+1First off, OIL is a Natural Resource that should belong to all of the people not a few individuals, so screw all of the the big oil companies, 75% tax.
    Second, who sent me the email to buy only American Oil? Was it, tricky Dick, so the price would rise?
  • ljw5021, on 08/05/2008, -1/+1Romney > you.
  • beauley, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1How important is the presidential election to each and every American? Should we study the background of our candidate of choice before we go to the ballot box?