TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Hillary showing her socialist colors
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Hillary showing her socialist colors

As she salivates at the possible funds she could forcibly take from an industry that has enjoyed the benefits of a secular rise in commodity prices and "better" use them as she sees fit.

"I want to take those profits [which were not created by the government and are now owned by the government]..."

Mark my words, there is a reason why this woman is unfit to be President and why she will not get elected.



I'd love to hear from Capitalizt on this one!

I am starting to like Hillary Clinton!!! You go girl!!! Corporations should serve us the people like they did in USA after the Revolution ;-)

This is just my opinion of course, I dont have scientific evidence to suggest its better than current money drain


She is destined to lose the election talking about corporations, the voter deciders and election financing zombies, like that!

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Corporations should serve us the people like they did in USA after the Revolution ;-)

Corporations serve their owners/shareholders first. I don't disagree that there should be a benefit to the people--and there certainly are benefits as we buy everything they produce. However, the government didn't create that wealth, so it is not theirs to take at the point of a gun. If you want a piece of Exxon, I suggest you go buy a few shares. It's not like the government is going to give you any of what they wrongfully take.

I think considering the fact that energy is a necessity, and that oil corporations are posting record profits while Americans are paying ridulous prices for gasoline show that something is wrong. I know we pay a large gas tax as well. I think there is room with something to be done. I'm definitely not saying I agree with Clinton. I wouldn't not vote for her if she were running or for any other Democrat for that matter.

:scowls and points finger in the air:
:thinks about responding:
:walks away:

Aside of the fact that I will not be voting for her unless she wins the primary (provided someone like Hagel wins it for the Republicans), her comments are a bit funny not just for the reason that you mentioned, but the fact that she's by far the BIGGEST beltway candidates who's getting corporate donations hand over foot for her campaign.

Besides, as I've said before, she has such a gigantic target on her back for the Right Wing Noise Machine, just waiting to slime her with every ounce of muster they've got. You think Kerry and the '04 election was slimy, this sucker will leave that in the dust. Actually I think any Pres. election will be slimy and a smearfest, but it'll be a downright shitfest if she wins the primary.

Anyway, I do think that she has a rather small point to be made about these record corporate profits from our oil folks. While I applaud any company for making such profits as it's a definite sign of company success, what I don't appreciate is the obvious bullshit rhetoric that they give the public to which most folks either shrug or buy into. For example, this op-ed by Chris Edwards at the Cato Institute stated the following:

quote:

That is great news because it means the company will have more funds to reinvest in exploration, refinery expansion, drilling platforms, chemical plants, and all those other brilliant machines that American families benefit from every day. The firm invested $20 billion in exploration, structures, and equipment in 2006... http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007...ay-for-profits/

So $20 billion got invested in exploration, structures, and equipment for the purpose of this:

quote:

High profits are a signal to ExxonMobil management, other energy companies, and Wall Street to feed this industry more capital and to continue increasing energy production. That�s good news for U.S. energy security and U.S. consumers.

All this is supposedly good for our economy and the American consumer, right?

Well a funny thing happened on the way to reading ExxonMobile's latest quarterly earnings:

http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com...00021&Type=HTML

You see, in there we see that a natural gas production increase to 9,334 mcfd, only 83 mcfd from 2005 or about 1%. Furthermore, petroleum sales of "7,247 kbd decreased from 7,519 kbd in 2005, primarily due to lower refining throughput and divestments."

Can someone explain how a company like ExxonMobile is somehow using their profits to increase energy production when their latest quarterly report clearly indicates otherwise? According to that quarterly report, ExxonMobile produced and processed LESS oil in refineries in 2006, yet still managed to ironically have the biggest profit for any company in American history.

Something else was interesting to note as well. In that quarterly report we see that "gross share purchases in 2006 were $29.6 billion which reduced shares outstanding by 6.6%." Which if I'm reading that correctly, that means that there was almost $30 billion invested in buying back its own stock, compared to the reported $20 billion spent on capital investment for equipment and stuff for energy production. This would appear to indicate that ExxonMobile believes its stock is a better investment than additional production capacity. Can anyone explain why this is so, especially if they are supposedly so invested in increasing energy production?

Lastly, this was interesting as well to note:

quote:

Earnings outside the U.S., excluding special items, were $21,062 million, $4,533 million higher than 2005

and the total profits were only up from $36.1 billion to $35.5 billion, or 3.4 billion, meaning that ExxonMobile's U.S. profits actually fell by about $1.1 billion. Can someone explain how that's somehow good for the U.S. economy?

Aside from *applauding* their success, you libs just can't stand it when big business makes big profits, can you? Unless they did something illegal or highly unethical to obtain those profits, it just sounds like whining to me. And yes they certainly should invest in the future, but that doesn't mean governments should be able to determine what is too much wealth. Anyway, you went on a lengthy tirade, while I am more focused on the exact wording that came out of Hillary's mouth. If it were anyone else, I might think I'm reading too much into it. But this is Hillary we're talking about. A slippery chameleon if ever there was one.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Aside from *applauding* their success, you libs just can't stand it when big business makes big profits, can you? Unless they did something illegal or highly unethical to obtain those profits, it just sounds like whining to me. And yes they certainly should invest in the future, but that doesn't mean governments should be able to determine what is too much wealth. Anyway, you went on a lengthy tirade, while I am more focused on the exact wording that came out of Hillary's mouth. If it were anyone else, I might think I'm reading too much into it. But this is Hillary we're talking about. A slippery chameleon if ever there was one.

No more slippery than any given Republican candidate right now. Hell, people can write a book on McCain and Romney's flip-flops and indecisiveness.

Regardless, I agree with what you specifically noted in her speech as troubling. However I did think the larger point I brought out is worth further examination. I don't have a problem with any capitalistic endeavor, but I will hold their rhetoric up to scrutiny when they supposedly say how much they invest in energy production when their reports clearly show the exact opposite.

Great, they made a profit. Just don't try to bullshit the public as to what and how you made it. And furthermore, can I please have my fucking tax $ back that you Republicans continually gave away to these oil boys as corporate welfare? For folks that believe in capitalism, that's really not very consistent of you. I could also discuss the lack of capitalistic values with your Administration and Healthcare, but I'll save that for another thread.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 And furthermore, can I please have my fucking tax $ back that you Republicans continually gave away to these oil boys as corporate welfare? For folks that believe in capitalism, that's really not very consistent of you. I could also discuss the lack of capitalistic values with your Administration and Healthcare, but I'll save that for another thread.

No argument here. Take away any and all subsidies. However, oil companies got no love when oil prices were under $20/bbl, but suddenly industry trends are heavily in their favor and they are demonized.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka No argument here. Take away any and all subsidies. However, oil companies got no love when oil prices were under $20/bbl, but suddenly industry trends are heavily in their favor and they are demonized.

Well what exactly are the "industry trends", and how exactly did they boost oil production up to, what, almost 4x that amount last summer? You mean to tell me that was soley do to "industry trends"? I can't help but be a wee bit skeptical of that claim in of itself, but as I said I won't knock any company for making a profit provided they do so legally (and I see no illegality here to my knowledge).

damn, havent logged on here in a while, and Shakka and Opus are still here in the political forums!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Well what exactly are the "industry trends", and how exactly did they boost oil production up to, what, almost 4x that amount last summer?

Industry trends being a variety of things like increased oil prices due to secular demand from China, India and other emerging markets. Higher premiums on oil due to escalated geopolitical tensions and the fact that most oil comes from more unstable, potentially hostile locales. Scores of gas-hungry SUVs on roads. Scores of hedge funds and other investors that create huge swings in commodity prices, etc, etc.

quote:

You mean to tell me that was soley do to "industry trends"? I can't help but be a wee bit skeptical of that claim in of itself, but as I said I won't knock any company for making a profit provided they do so legally (and I see no illegality here to my knowledge).

I wasn't necessarily chalking everything up to "industry trends," rather just pointing out that current trends are obviously heavily in their favor. No doubt some credit should be given where good management and corporate structure/finance/business model have played a role.

I never thought that cheerleaders should be presidential candidates, never had much respect for her when she was the 1st lady, mostly because she should have booted Bill's ass into the nearest wall.
But the 'job' and 'public image' seemed to come first which is something I can't really connect with, no transparency there of emotions which is a shame because she's fairly intelligent, but no real integrity. Forced to pick between her or GWB I can't really see her doing anything worse...
Lots of ladies in the US that would do a good job though, just don't think this one is it.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild I think considering the fact that energy is a necessity, and that oil corporations are posting record profits while Americans are paying ridulous prices for gasoline show that something is wrong. I know we pay a large gas tax as well. I think there is room with something to be done. I'm definitely not saying I agree with Clinton. I wouldn't not vote for her if she were running or for any other Democrat for that matter.

There was a thread in the CORE about this. Turns out Exxon Mobil's, and other oil company's main source of income is petrochemicals. Exxon only supplies 3% of the oil used. So it can be a little misleading to think that they are making these billions mainly off of oil.

Re: Hillary showing her socialist colors

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I'd love to hear from Capitalizt on this one!

Obama will beat her.

is there not a better woman for the job in this beautiful country of ours that this shifty, redistribution queen dressed as a quasi-populist gets the presumtive nod on just her rhetoric and name recognition?

from 2004:

quote:

(06-28) 19:03 PDT SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- The leftiest big city on the Left Coast was Clinton country on Monday, with former President Clinton continuing his blockbuster book tour and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton headlining a Democratic fund-raiser where she vowed to defeat the Republicans' "extraordinarily ruthless machine." Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters -- some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend -- to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress. "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

video of Shakka's quote. remember this lefties, when go to vote next year. Kucinich is your man. think K-U-C-I-N-I-C-H

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Forced to pick between her or GWB I can't really see her doing anything worse...

she wouldn't stand a chance, but thats a very biased opinion.

luckily for people like you that won't happen

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail There was a thread in the CORE about this. Turns out Exxon Mobil's, and other oil company's main source of income is petrochemicals. They only supply 3% of the oil used. So it can be a little misleading to think that they are making these billions mainly off of oil.

Thanks for the info. I really need to read into it more.

Hillay is the biggest socialist in the Senate....omg she's so far left it's not even funny! She's a part of the "loony left". Who would think that government would try to control profits.....I mean Bush is a socialist too cause recently he was talking about the same thing..that these CEOs are making too much, and it doesn't show in the performance of their company and at the expense of the consumer. Who cares about the consumer...it's a socialist idea. We are a capitalist society, the only that matters is that these companies are making money. We need to shut up all of the socialists...jeeze..Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi..even Bush, what a bunch of commies!

I'm voting for Ann Coulter for President! She'd make a better female president! wait...is she a female???

P.S.

Bubba Clinton is responsible for everything that has gone wrong in our country. Hillary will turn us into North Korea! Run for Canada!

uh Canada wouldn't be a great idea cause they are more socialist-like than we are! haha

Nah she's a man baby!

I am leaning towards MisterOpus1's thinking, he is definitely a bigger expert in this economic side of oil thing for sure. One thing for sure is that even though Exxon Mobil and other corporations deserve a share of the profits, a share of that should also go for the better of the people - i.e. heavier taxes to support education, roads, environment. These powerful corporations can do a lot of things with so much money like influencing political machine of the country which is evident in recent American history ;-)

I dont like Hillary, I dont like Republicans, I dont like Democracts. I dont like any of American politicians for that matter ;-) Lets resurrect Jefferson!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Zild Nah she's a man baby!

Nah fuck ressurecting Jefferson. It's all about Zombie Reagan man!

Funny story....after the election..our Governor in Michigan, who was born in Canada (Jennifer Granholm) was re-elected. That same week, I went to see a movie (Borat) and two guys behind me were complaining about her being re-elected. Well one of the guys said the most idiotic thing I have heard in my life..after complaining about taxes...fearing she was going to raise them...he said "I'm moving to Canada"...uh ok...that makes sense....haha

Thing is..people can complain all they want about socialist ideas, but moving to Europe (most of it) or Canada or such..isn't going to make things better..cause you'll be paying much higher taxes, and basically what you get in those countries is Socialism-lite. So I don't get what the right-wingers have against some socialist ideas that Europe and Canada have adopted (obviously it's not in their right-wing philosophy but socialism like ideas could be done without total government interfernce and still capitalist economically). Granted, I wouldn't want our country to turn into say Venuzuela, but that's not even "socialism" in the European sense, but a more Soviet styled totalitarianism like in Cuba.

Sooo...

Are you using "Socialism" as some of kind of automatic negative key word here?

Kind of like "communism" or "fascism"?

A lot of right wingers use socialism and liberalism as dirty words and use them to describe anything in which benefits the people run by the government...whether it's universal healthcare, tuition help, lowering of taxes on the middle class, progressive taxation, allowing of gay marriage/civil unions, government oversight on corporations, uh a lot of stuff like that. Some of this stuff is neccessary, if only it is to help the little guy. But I guess I am just a liberal so I agree with these ideas.

Sometimes when they say "oh Canada, they are just a bunch of liberals" makes me think they are jealous cause Canada has much less problems than the US does. Still not a perfect country (no country is) and has corruption, but it definitely seems to not have the same reputation the US does...only in the eyes of right wingers who feel it's the worst place in the world cause it's got liberal or socialist-lite programs. In the end, the US has similar programs too, but they are pretty unreliable for the most part, esp our health care system.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.