Obama's Unabashed Socialism: Income Redistribution of Energy Co. Profits

[applesanity]

Yes, yes, I know the choir gets a healthy dosing of anti-Obama every day on TFL, but he just keeps on piling the filth.

BARACK OBAMA’S EMERGENCY ECONOMIC PLAN

Excerpts:

That is why today Barack Obama is calling for an Emergency Economic Plan that will relieve the burden on families struggling with high gas and grocery bills or preparing for high heating bills. At the same time, the Obama plan will help create jobs to jumpstart an economic recovery. This Emergency Economic Plan is a down-payment on Obama’s long-run plans to restore tax fairness and invest in infrastructure and clean energy to foster long-run growth. It has two parts:

1. Forcing big oil companies to take a reasonable share of their record breaking windfall profits and use it to help struggling families with direct relief worth $500 for an individual and $1,000 for a married couple. The relief would be delivered as quickly as possible to help families cope with the rising price of gasoline, food and other necessities. The rebates would be fully paid for with five years of a windfall profits tax on record oil company profits. This relief would be a down payment on Obama’s long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1000 per year in permanent tax relief.
   
   
2. $50 billion in immediate measures to turn our economy around and help prevent more than 1 million Americans from losing their jobs:

Alright, I'm already against handouts, but this crap is just too much to handle. Obama wants redistribution of wealth.

(In protest to those tax handouts we all got in May and June, I took my $600 and went on a vacation - abroad.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always been under the impression that the end point of capitalism is to make money. Furthermore, those who are better able to make money, will make more money than those who suck at it. Thanks to Obama, if you make too much money, the government is gonna take it away from you.

I grow tired of people complaining about profits from those dreaded "Big Oil" companies. First, they are actually "Energy" companies, meaning they do a lot more than make your gasoline. Second, any American with a retirement account or a mutual fund portfolio has investments tied up in one or several energy companies. You should want oil companies to succeed, seeing as how most of us are indirect shareholders.

It'll start with "Big Oil." What next? Wal-Mart and all those "Big-Box" stores...they'll have to subsidize every struggling mom-and-pop store. What about those tech companies? Google and Microsoft make record profits - they should subsidize computers for everyone. Then maybe Smith, Wesson, Ruger, and Remington - a euphemistic "emergency victim's relief aid package" - aka, seizing profits from immoral weapon makers to pay for health coverage for those injured by guns.

Then the inevitable - our American corporations will either relocate overseas, or start hiding profits and dodging taxes.

Those of you who can't stand John McCain, or are still hung up on Ron Paul or whoever is Ron Paul's consolation prize/ replacement these days, know this: Obama isn't just all about taking your precious guns away. Obama's economic policies are just downright insane and dangerous for America.

With a Democrat-controlled Congress and a rabid cult of personality growing around him, Obama's crazy crap will probably become crazy law, should he become #44. Insuring that Obama loses come November is more important than standing up for your petty grievances against McCain.

 

[dm1333]

Barack Obama believes it is important
not to abandon our commitment to long-term fiscal discipline.

This is ironic. The government seems to have no commitment to fiscal discipline so his plan is to take money away from the oil companies to pay for tax relief, health, education and housing benefits, and to replenish the Highway Trust Fund. I'm making a vow to be fiscally disciplined and the first step in that process? I'm going to rob a local store! Who said economics was hard.

 

[Unregistered]

Do you also have problems with the handouts Bush allowed?

 

[Kreyzhorse]

Do you also have problems with the handouts Bush allowed?

Those "stimulus" checks were designed to spur the ecomony that was clearly in shouting distance of a recession. The possible recession driven by high fuel prices.

 

[teeroux]

I'm making a vow to be fiscally disciplined and the first step in that process? I'm going to rob a local store! Who said economics was hard.

LOL

Do you also have problems with the handouts Bush allowed?

Yes if the Gov. needs all them taxes they take out of my check how can it be justified that they give some back to curb the public's cost of living? Also not to sound like i come from money (i dont)i really didn't need the $1200 me and my wife recieved it could have been given to someone really needing, but yes i did spend it (a la applesnity on something that didnt even curb my cost of living)on an evil black rifle.

 

[applesanity]

Do you also have problems with the handouts Bush allowed?

Yep. Like I said in the OP,

(In protest to those tax handouts we all got in May and June, I took my $600 and went on a vacation - abroad.)

I did not boost the U.S. economy with my handout. I boosted the economy of some other country. At any rate I'm not cool with your whole "blame Bush first" mentality. Though Bush wanted it, it was Congress (read: Pelosi + Reid) that rushed it though. Then Pelosi + Reid said that the handouts weren't enough and wanted even bigger ones.

It's easy and justifiable to blame Bush for many things. However, he isn't the one you blame for everything.

i really didn't need the $1200 me and my wife recieved it could have been given to someone really needing, but yes i did spend it (a la applesnity on something that didnt even curb my cost of living)on an evil black rifle.

Wait, wait, you spent the wifey's $600 too? You could have let her spend her $600 on a pair of Manolo Blahnik heels.

Nevertheless, this thread is not about the merits of handouts, not really. It is about Obama proposing redistribution. It is Obama being a socialist. It is about all of us realizing that our gun rights will be the least of our concerns if we were to allow Obama to become #44. On a not so subtle note, it is about us supporting and voting for the lesser of two evils, John McCain - instead of sitting at home or voting for Ron Paul or Ron Paul's replacement.

 

[Al Norris]

Nevertheless, this thread is not about the merits of handouts, not really. It is about Obama proposing redistribution. It is Obama being a socialist. It is about all of us realizing that our gun rights will be the least of our concerns if we were to allow Obama to become #44. On a not so subtle note, it is about us supporting and voting for the lesser of two evils, John McCain - instead of sitting at home or voting for Ron Paul or Ron Paul's replacement.

It's gotten really shrill around here. People can't seem to stay on topic. Ad hominems are cropping up everywhere. Some veiled, some not so veiled.

I have Saturday off, this week. I think I'll take the time to start pruning posts from some of the threads here - including this one. Some of you may just get pruned, along with your posts.

Start editing your posts now, 'cause I'm borrowing Bud Helms' scythe.

 

[Citizen Carrier]

There is a difference betwee the government refunding tax money back to me and a politician telling a private business that they are going to do refunds.

For some, the difference may be a question of symantics, but somebody on this forum has already nailed it. Prepare to see some of the stuff from Atlas Shrugged actually being passed into law.

Just me, but this sounds like some kind of a scheme to circumvent the mechanisms of the market. In a free market, if the government arbitrarily raises taxes on a corporation, the corporation merely makes it's product or service that much more expensive in order to maintain profitability (as Boortz says, corporations don't really pay taxes, we do). Sounds like Obama understands that well enough to come up with some way to make it difficult for that mechanism to be effective.

Wealth redistribution is going to be the defining characteristic of Obama's presidency.

 

[Unregistered]

There is a difference betwee the government refunding tax money back to me and a politician telling a private business that they are going to do refunds.

You have forgotten what happened with the Bush tax handouts. Many of the people who received money back from the government had paid no tax at all. And the people who paid the most tax got nothing.
This is wealth redistribution, plain and simple, and it was done by Bush.

I agree what Obama has planned is bad. But please don't misrepresent the Republicans as a party opposed to wealth redistribution.

 

[Citizen Carrier]

I do remember Congressional Democrats complaining that people who never paid taxes weren't getting a tax refund. Remember quite clearly various radio show hosts mocking the irrational nature of that complaint.

What I'm not seeing yet in the window I have open researching this is where people who didn't file income taxes got a refund check. From what I can tell, that tax law was specifically written to exclude them.

Such as here:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec01/tax_rebate.html

Not everyone who worked and paid taxes will get rebates, including most teens with part-time or full-time jobs. The law requires that people had to earn a certain amount of money to receive rebates along with many other restrictions.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/05/15/politics/main291377.shtml

The amount of the refund check will be based on the taxpayer's 2000 income tax return. The maximum will be $600 for married filers and $300 for single filers.

Here's one about the more recent checks:

Who gets a rebate? Most people who pay taxes or earn at least $3,000, including through Social Security or veterans' disability benefits. Singles making more than $75,000 and couples with income topping $150,000, however, will get smaller checks, up to the top limits for any rebate: incomes of $87,000 for individuals and $174,000 for couples.

To get any rebate, you must file a 2007 tax return and have a valid Social Security number. If you already filed your 2007 return, the IRS says you don't need to do anything extra.


Having looked around for a few minutes now, I cannot find indication of tax refund checks going to people who didn't file income taxes to begin with.

Perhaps it is out there and I am missing it, but I suspect you may be mis-remembering Democrat complaints that non-filers should have gotten checks too as historical fact that such people DID get rebate checks.

I don't think that happened.

 

[Unregistered]

Having looked around for a few minutes now, I cannot find indication of tax refund checks going to people who didn't file income taxes to begin with

You had to file a return, but you didnt necessarily have to pay any tax, to get the rebate.

 

[Caeser2001]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always been under the impression that the end point of capitalism is to make money. Furthermore, those who are better able to make money, will make more money than those who suck at it. Thanks to Obama, if you make too much money, the government is gonna take it away from you.


that's what I was taught in in school. which makes me think, why should I go to school to get a good paying job to make money when in the end it will be taken away from me and given those who choose collect welfare and sit on their fat lazy azz all day

 

[Citizen Carrier]

You had to file a return, but you didnt necessarily have to pay any tax, to get the rebate.

Still not able to find substantiation of this.

The 2001 tax refund checks were based on your 2000 tax forms.

I think this question and answer uncovers those few instances where people got a refund for their past taxes paid, but didn't pay enough taxes in 2001 ($6000 or more) to justify a tax refund check.

Here's an explanation of the refunds in 2001.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/block/2001-06-12-block.htm

Q: What happens if I had $6,000 in taxable income in 2000, but less than that in 2001? Will I have to give it back when I file my 2001 tax returns?

A: No. The government has decided it would be too complicated to try to collect rebates from people whose income fell in 2001, Schafer says. So if you've been laid off, go ahead and use the money to pay your bills. The IRS won't ask you to give it back.

Q: How much will I get?

A: The check represents an advance refund on your 2001 taxes. The tax cut reduced the rate to 10% from 15% on the first $6,000 of taxable income for singles, $12,000 for married couples who file jointly, and $10,000 for heads of households. The rates are retroactive to Jan. 1. That translates into a $300 refund for singles, $600 for married couples who file jointly and $500 for heads of households.

Taxpayers who earned less than $6,000 may still receive a check for a smaller amount. The amount of the check will equal 5% of your taxable income. For example, a single taxpayer with taxable income of $4,000 would get $200.

Because the government doesn't yet know how much you'll earn in 2001, the rebate will be based on your 2000 taxable income. Taxable income is your income after credits, exemptions and deductions. If you filed Form 1040, it's on Line 39 of your tax return; on 1040A, it appeared on Line 25.



It may have happened in remote instances, but the law was not written to purposefully refund money to people who didn't pay at least $6000 in taxes in 2000. If you paid less than $6000 in taxes (but more than zero), it was still possible to get a smaller percentage rebate check.

By law, if you didn't earn enough taxable income in 2000, you weren't going to get a rebate check. If you owed taxes, you sure as heck weren't going to get one either.

 

[dresden8]

But what about all those "what is the government going to do about the price of gas?" threads that keep popping up?

If you want a return to unabashed capitalism I suggest you start reading Dickens. Will your kids fit in a chimney or a coalmine? Sure if they get killed at least they're not commies.

 

[obxned]

The “home of the brave and the land of the free" has become a nation of spoiled whiners. We wallow butt-deep in I-pods and plasma TVs and more stuff than we have space in our homes for, and cry about how poor we are.

Now if some of you thinks this brilliant plan from our new messiah will do anything to improve our energy situation, then perhaps we have also become a nation of drooling idiots.

 

[gretske]

Let me assure you this is true. I did the income taxes for my 93 year-old-father for 2007. He paid no taxes, no withholding, nothing. But, he got a $600 rebate check. This was a bone of contention, but the Repubs finally blinked, and the Dems got their give-away, again.

 

[wingman]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always been under the impression that the end point of capitalism is to make money. Furthermore, those who are better able to make money, will make more money than those who suck at it.

I've been a life long conservative and I view our country changing fast much in part due to greed, at what point does profit become corrupt, immoral, does it do so if it harms the country. I don't have the answer but I do know everything needs limits or you need people with common sense and/or moral judgment which in my opinion is lacking both in large corporations and our government, perhaps and this is just a thought too much profit in the hands of a few may drive the masses to socialism/communism. I think this comming election may forecast for us the path we're on.

 

[Fremmer]

So Obama wants to revive a Jimmy Carter windfall tax on oil? Big surprise there. It didn't work for Jimmy, and it won't work for Obama, either. But that's the democrat's answer to America's energy crisis: raise taxes! More taxes! Bigger taxes! Taxes, taxes, taxes.

 

[DMMikey]

We have a "progressive" tax system. People who make more money pay a higher percentage. Theoretically, anyway. (There are often so many loopholes and write offs that many wealthy, and some corporations, end up paying no income taxes.) There has been income redistribution based on this since day one.
So this is a targeted tax. That's been done before. Just like targeted tax breaks are done too. Its done to achieve an overall national or societal goal. Its the nature of any government.
Socialist? maybe. There is a lot more socialism going on than most realize. And most of the time, it works rather well. But I doubt the OP could possibly admit this.

 

[gretske]

“Progressive tax”, “tax the rich” and other innocuous sounding phrases mask the real objective, which is socialism. Socialism is a system that must restrict liberties and turn over most personal decisions to governmental control. The fastest way to achieving government control is by controlling the money. The more government can tax its citizens, and then make the buying decisions itself, the more control it can assume.

Socialism cannot compete over time with free, capitalistic systems. Because it cannot compete with free enterprise, socialism always seeks to eliminate or weaken capitalistic nations. The Soviet Union is a case in point, as are Cuba, North Korea, and many Latin American governments.

Today, most of Europe is socialist to a more or less degree, and needs a weaker US to compete with, so it can continue its march towards socialism. Obama has clearly indicated that he would take this country in that direction, so expect to see continued intrusions on civil liberties and higher taxes should he be elected president, God forbid!