digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Obama Backs Off Promise to Pass Profits Tax on Big Oil

huffingtonpost.com — Obama, who signaled early in his campaign for the White House that he would take an active approach to oil markets as president, had planned to use the revenue from a windfall profits tax to fund a tax rebate for low- and middle-income families struggling with high energy prices.

Who dugg this?

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

24 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • jgregc, on 12/03/2008, -2/+18Just the beginning...
  • trickstertales, on 12/03/2008, -2/+14Oh please, the oil cartel has been manipulating prices for whatever the market can bear to cover their asses since the beginning of the lobby in government to turn to oil and cars. Urban sprawl, defunct trains, coursing highways.... pushed by the car and oil industries, not for the good of the country but so they could make money. The history is there for anyone who wants to read it. And the tax cuts to the rich? Believe me, since I happen to know a few in the top 1% financially in this country, their assets are not hurting one bit from the economic crisis. They are well insulated, haven't been paying taxes for decades, and have their money secured in trust funds they inherit without giving up a drop thanks to the so-called "death tax." Wake up folks. We are getting bilked again. Or did you miss the articles on those in Wall Street w/ the big money getting out right before the crash?
  • SheilaNoya, on 12/03/2008, -5/+16Obama's original proposal was for a "windfall profits" tax.

    Since oil has recently plummeted about $100 per barrel, I'm not sure you can still claim they have any "windfall" profits.

    We'll have to see what kind of earnings reports the oil companies have now after this huge drop in prices.
  • Diggopolis, on 12/03/2008, -5/+15Obama will find that he can't deliver on all of the promises he offered, it doesn't mean he actually lied - it only means his ignorance about certain things was cured. :)
  • inactive, on 12/04/2008, -0/+10The State of California's constitution has no native-born requirement to be its chief executive. the Unites States' constitution does.
  • inactive, on 12/04/2008, -0/+8A constitutional requirement for being president is being born in the United States.
  • kroses, on 12/04/2008, -2/+10And why I hate POLITICIANS!!!!!!! Is Obama just another one who breaks his promises after the election???
  • mrcaulfield, on 12/03/2008, -2/+9Big Oil made as much money as they needed to before Obama was elected, now that
    prices are lower they won't have to pay for price gouging.

    "And I say to my self....'What a wonderful world.'"

    ...not.
  • Darren07, on 12/03/2008, -0/+6Indeed.
  • Phalanxia, on 12/03/2008, -1/+7*Adds to "The Big List of Why I Hate Big Oil"*
  • zacharytelschow, on 12/03/2008, -2/+7This was a central promise, not something mentioned a single time off handedly. How many other main promises will he have to go back on before his base abandons him for the empty suit he is?
  • monsieurginger, on 12/04/2008, -0/+5But why?
  • winstonsmith303, on 12/03/2008, -2/+7Meet the new boss, same as the old boss? I hope not.
  • zacharytelschow, on 12/03/2008, -3/+8Now his redistributionist "stimulous" package will be funded by borrowing instead. Wheeeee!
  • zacharytelschow, on 12/04/2008, -3/+7You clearly don't understand what the term profit margin means.
  • johndi, on 12/04/2008, -1/+5They paid 94.2 billion in taxes to make that 37.4 billion. It's a doubleplusgood windfall for governments. Maybe we should ask for a windfall tax rebate.
  • vault, on 12/04/2008, -0/+4There was a Republican-led bill to undo that so Schwarzenegger could run. Not sure whatever happened to it.

    The original thinking, I guess, was that they didn't want the risk of some monarch-loyalist running.
  • FreddieD, on 12/04/2008, -2/+6It's refreshing to see HuffPo hold their own guy's feet to the fire. I somehow doubt I'd see Drudge do this about Bush.
  • monsieurginger, on 12/04/2008, -1/+5Why can the Governator be a governor of California but not prez?
  • inactive, on 12/03/2008, -6/+9*****
  • monsieurginger, on 12/04/2008, -1/+3What's the difference?
  • ThsGuyRightHere, on 12/04/2008, -1/+2On the one hand, it's disappointing to hear. On the other hand, in his shoes you want to hit the ground running. The first moves you make need to be the ones that have the most positive impact with the least amount of work, cost, and expenditure of political capital. If taxing profits that big oil isn't making as much of now won't have the desired effect, there's no sense sinking time and energy into it up front.
  • inactive, on 12/03/2008, -6/+6Here is Exxon mobil's official earnings report.

    for the 9 months of 2008 they have a NET: 37.4 billion

    http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/news_rel ...

    Thats a windfall

  • zacharytelschow, on 12/03/2008, -5/+4Their profit margins were always relatively small. They never had any windfall profits.

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...

© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.