Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Another Idiotic Idea from Obama



August 01, 2008 – Comments (18)

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. -- Barack Obama called for a $1,000 "emergency" rebate to consumers to offset soaring energy costs amid fresh signs of a struggling economy with the nation's unemployment rate climbing to a four-year high.

Sen. Obama told a town-hall meeting the rebate would be financed with a windfall profits tax on the oil industry.

Sure, Barack. Fight inflation caused by massive demand by giving people more money so their demand keeps up. And make sure you do it by taking away money from the oil companies so they can't reinvest it in obtaining more fuel.

Oh, and do it right after slowing demand has begun to cause price drops.

This guy is a pandering disaster.

18 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On August 01, 2008 at 6:24 PM, LordZ wrote:

SADly this is the best (totally laughable) idea this fool is trying to enact, just imagine the wholesale bad ideas and legislation that will take effect should he get into the office of the president along with a mostly democratic house and senate.

All one needs to do is look to Russia look to Russias past, when they nationalized the farmers, they nearly starved to death,  additionally the Russians have the worst taxes on its oil industry which has resulted in less oil production and higher prices with no new money willing to invest in new exploration or drilling as the state gets most of the money generated from its oil industry.

An additional profit tax ~ will only make them less efficient and will hurt all consumers as well as stake holders.

Someone needs to enlighten and teach Obama, obviously all the weed and coke in his youth has warped his rational thinking.


Report this comment
#2) On August 01, 2008 at 6:41 PM, TheGarcipian (34.41) wrote:

Oh, that's enlightening, LordZ. Please don't pander to your Republican base by attacking the man. Try to stay on track by staying on the issues. You'll make a better, more solid argument.

Report this comment
#3) On August 01, 2008 at 6:46 PM, eldemonio (98.04) wrote:

How about $1000 dollars worth of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stock?  I mean, my money is already going to bail them out, I might as well get something out of it.  I could use it to wipe my a$$. 

I do not like either of my choices for president.  It's almost as if someone is asking me to choose between getting punched in the face, or kicked in the balls.

Report this comment
#4) On August 01, 2008 at 7:22 PM, motleyanimal (38.23) wrote:

Whose taxes would Jesus cut?

Report this comment
#5) On August 01, 2008 at 7:45 PM, jester112358 (28.23) wrote:

Good point.  Let's dump more gasoline on the inflation fire to try and put it out!

The democrats approach:  if there's a problem in the private sector there's certainly a government solution which enhances the power of the government and thus the pandering  politicians.

Report this comment
#6) On August 01, 2008 at 7:48 PM, eimersd (27.93) wrote:

Well said eldemonio. . . .I think you've summed up the feelings of about half the American Public!  Personally, both my face and balls are severely aching at the moment!

Report this comment
#7) On August 01, 2008 at 7:49 PM, rd80 (95.81) wrote:

Let's see.  Obama wants to give consumers $1000 funded by a 'windfall' profits tax on oil companies; the oil companies then raise prices to reflect their higher tax rates; consumers give the $1000 back to the oil companies through higher gas, plastic, food, etc. prices.  In the process, the entire cycle is made less efficient so in the end everyone ends up with less.

The math doesn't even work.  The US population is about  300 million.  If even a third of those are Obama's consumers, the price tag is $100 billion.  All the big oil companies together reported something like $50 billion in profits last quarter. Exactly how much of the 'windfall' does the Senator plan on stealing from shareholders? Don't they teach math at Harvard?

I have yet to hear any of these clowns propose how they would define a 'windfall' profit.  Or explain why Exxon's 10% profit margin deserves to be taxed more, but Apple's 15% profit margin or Google's 24% profit margin is ok.  BTW, Exxon's tax rate was already 49% last quarter.

Maybe what we really need is an excess politicians tax.

Report this comment
#8) On August 01, 2008 at 8:32 PM, QualityPicks (46.24) wrote:

No, please, not from the oil companies, take it from the Financial companies! After all they are well funded and will turn out a profit next quarter (I heard that from most financial firms' CEOs) ha ha. Besides, financial institutions are allowed to ignore and hide losses and recognize smoke and mirrors as profits (e.g. BofA will only recognize profits from CFC but will not honor their losses and debts).

No wait, better yet, take it from our politicians pockets and financial companies CEOs.

Report this comment
#9) On August 01, 2008 at 8:54 PM, FleaBagger (27.48) wrote:

Do you not know, Seth? Have you not heard? Obama is the Chosen One! He is here to save us! Cease your pointless rational thought and believe. Believe in the audacity of hope. Believe audaciously and hopefully. Hope to believe in the audacity! Audacize! Believify! Hopicate! He's black for Dr. King's sake! Black enough, anyway.

So, stop thinking so much, and go out there and vote. Vote early, vote often, and tell your dead friends to vote. Votify! Believificate in the hopitude of audaciticious Chosen One!

Report this comment
#10) On August 01, 2008 at 9:29 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

More of the Government will save you. Or.... This is how I will buy the American vote. Take your pick just put us deeper and deeper in Debt.  More New World Order talk from rep. and Dem. alike.

Report this comment
#11) On August 01, 2008 at 9:43 PM, LordZ wrote:

TheGarcipian  the man may fail, he will surely die

however ~ ideas ~ especially stupid ones ~ can do much more harm than any one flawed man.

Lets say we decide to totally screw oil companies ~ deem them too evil and totally stick government interference upon them, we legislate profits to the state and risk to the shareholders ???

how sucessful would this strategy be ?? wjay long term vision ~ stupid stupid stupid !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

whats worse is the congress has left without doing the one thing that would help most americans


allow off shore drilling...............................

instead hey lets give out coupons,,,,,,,,

 a lot of freaking good that will do....

oh yeah lets take the money from the oil industry,,,

how unamerican and how un democratic...



Report this comment
#12) On August 02, 2008 at 2:32 AM, eskatonic (28.60) wrote:

if they are going to send out more rebate checks, could they not do FOUR seperate mailings?

This is to notify you that the government is giving out money and you may qualify.


You do qualify.


Here is the check.


BTW we sent you a check so make sure to look for it. 

Report this comment
#13) On August 02, 2008 at 12:10 PM, RainierMan (63.77) wrote:

Odd; we have runaway national debt, rampant inflation, a credit crisis, failing banks, two budget busting wars with no end in sight, rising unemployment, lousy consumer confidence, government bailouts (though I never hear anyone call THAT socialism), a seriously troubled dollar...I'm sure I've missed a few....and yet people are scared silly over a potential tax on the record profits (the resulting payout to citizens would be smaller than the tax rebate we received) of oil companies which would likely be voted down in congress anyway. 

I'm not a fan of taxing our way out of stupid fiscal policy either, I want to fix the policy, but really, in relative terms, an oil tax is a non issue.

And in case I missed something, is anyone in congress really talking about fixing the way we manage the national budget, or are they just doing the same thing that is happening in this discussion; slamming the other guy.

Report this comment
#14) On August 02, 2008 at 12:12 PM, camistocks (53.72) wrote:

TMFBent, I think you are not  the liberal that you are pretending to be. I guess the article many months ago calling you a "conservative" was not that wrong!

Report this comment
#15) On August 03, 2008 at 8:26 AM, TDRH (97.01) wrote:

$5,000 rebate checks will not save the next president from a four year term.    There shift/contraction of consumer demand is necessary and painful.   But voters will not understand.  5.7% unemployment is just the beginning.   Checks direct to consumers will only prolong the pain.

Report this comment
#16) On August 05, 2008 at 9:17 PM, TheGarcipian (34.41) wrote:

Exactly my point, LordZ. These are stupid ideas! Making disparaging remarks about "all the weed and coke in his youth" did more disservice to your argument, belittling and detracting from it. Staying on the issues and being less like Faux News with their personal attacks makes for a more cogent remark.

I agree: this is a dumb idea. And it's just another example of the politicians pandering to the low-information voter. In my opinion, it's no worse than the pandering McCain did last week when he answered the little girl who asked him if he'd raise our taxes and he defiantly said, "No." IMHO, if you believe that neither candidate will raise taxes within 2 years after he gets office, you are a (lowercase-f) fool. He will have to. Not immediately because this economy is sick, sick, sick. But within the next 2 years, we will need to because, as a country, we are broke, and our infrastructure (for just one example) is in dire need of public works projects.

The reality is that the longer a politician has been in office, the more apt he is to favor the lobbyists and Big Businesses that support him. We've seen this in the Democratic leadership of the '60's and some of the 90's, as well as the Republican leadership of the 70's, 80's, and 00's. The truth is that there has to be, must be, a balance between Capital and Labor. Otherwise, all but the uber-rich suffer. Another way to put this is "a rising tide lifts all boats." And our boats are mostly sinking.

Since the signing of NAFTA under Clinton, Labor has had a weakening grasp, and Capital/Management has turned to cheaper international markets, effectively drying up our manufacturing sector (now only 12% of GDP) and sending many jobs overseas. Financials have swollen to fill that void left by Manufacturing, to something like 28% of GDP currently. And we see now how this Republican administration has rewarded the greed and failures of these financial behemoths, socializing their losses to the rest of us who did not participate in their avarice (very much like in the 80's during the Reagan era). Meanwhile, for those jobs left here, we've seen wage deterioration in terms of real dollars against real inflation (not the crap low-ball figure the government purports as inflation). We are working harder now for less money than just 10 years ago. And that negative wage-growth curve is increasing. China is going to eat our lunch. I have serious doubts that we will ever be the world leader again in GDP. In the interim, Joe American marches blithely along, nose to the grindstone, and the gap between rich and poor widens, primarily because the rich are the ones writing the laws. And--shocker!--they don't always have the masses in mind when those laws get written. History has shown repeatedly that the larger the gap between rich & poor, the more likely the country is to collapse under the weight of excessive debt, social unrest or outright revolution. IMO, we need a leader right now who's more in the middle than at either extreme, a person who understands that the policies in place for the last 8 years are not working, but are failing us at an alarming rate. Is that McCain? Doesn't sound like it to me, not from what the Arizona Senator has been saying about maintaining Bush's egregious policies. Sounds to me that Obama has been putting forth several ideas, many more than McCain, although they're not all the best thought out (like stupidly offering a windfall profits tax on Big Oil, I'll give you that). And that's why it's all the more important to look past the man who would be President, and look at the people with which he surrounds himself. Those will likely be the ones in his Cabinet and will be the ones making American policy for the next 4 years. If nothing else, we should have learned that these past dark 8 years with the Rumsfelds, the Cheneys, the Roves, and the Alberto Gonzales's. One man cannot be all things to all people; that's why we have Cabinet posts. Personally, I'd rather have Warren Buffett as a financial advisor than Phil "Enron Loophole Author" Gramm, but I'm funny that way...

Regarding drilling offshore, sure, that's a good idea too, but it's nothing that's going to help the situation out for 4-5 years at a minimum. We need more immediate solutions as well.  As silly as the idea of making sure your tires are fully & properly inflated may sound, that is a (partial) solution that can be implemented today. At least someone is considering all alternatives rather than just "staying the course", which has worked so well over the past 6 years...

Report this comment
#17) On August 06, 2008 at 4:19 PM, LordZ wrote:


what do you have against mother earth ???

obviously Obama is a good example that you can indulge

without the world coming to an end...

many people have had a smoke

or a snort.

GWB has had many.

That Senator who helped Afghanistan defeat the Soviets also liked to indulge.

I disagree about the need to feel that taxes need to be raised.

Its tax revenues that need to be raised, and you can do that with a higher probability with tax cuts as opposed to tax increases.

We are sadly taxed too much, and the worst tax of all is inflation, especially for the man on the lower end of the pole.

More drilling will produce more revenue, by all means get the money !!! lets get more oil on the market my goodness at such an all time high price.

Lets put people to work, think about all the jobs, and all the added pin action in the service industry and support industry.

But lets not forget about the other sources of energy.

It was utterly irresponsible for the democrats to leave without taking action, hell they voted by not voting telling all us americans who are really hurting to basically go frack themselves and hey buddy just check your air filter and your tires and you'll do better wtf !!!!

Obama could have taken a true leadership position by conceding that Mccain is right about the need for more drilling and working together with Mccain.

I don't really care for Mccain, but if anything he says sticks in your head !!!

It should be this... I would rather loss the election and win the war on  these terrorists.

than win the election and lose the war.

I hope i'm wrong, but it seems to me that the DEMS and OBAMA would rather win the election at any costs.

Even if it meant doing whats wrong for the economy, for our national security, and for our nation.

Obama missed the boat and paid head to those who would rather keep us dependant on cheap or now a days not so cheap foreign oil.

Obama is aloof and elitest and the more he tries to talk to the average man the more apparent it shows.



Report this comment
#18) On August 06, 2008 at 4:23 PM, LordZ wrote:

One day Obama could be a good president,

but it is not this day.



Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners