Support NeoGAF

[Gaborn]

Interesting fact, Google made a 25% profit last year. Should they be subjected to a windfall profits tax?

 

[soul creator]

Putin accuses U.S. of orchestrating Georgia War

McCain did start loudly beating his "foreign policy experience" drum right after this happened, playing up the "new Cold War" rhetoric.

And the Georgian president did seem like he expecting the U.S. to get involved somehow. And having this all happen on the first day of the Olympics seemed odd too.

Hurm.

 

[bob_arctor]

What's so wrong with "CHAN"? Not that it matters, because I clearly see five letters, "CHANG."

Yeah, I don't really see it myself. Not that I think it's entirely beneath the McCain camp really but it's on some reachin' shit. Is the purported connotation supposed to be "Hang the black guy" or "Hang higher taxes on you"? Either way: straws, let me grasp at them.

 

[ronito]

Interesting fact, Google made a 25% profit last year. Should they be subjected to a windfall profits tax?

Depends, did they get government subsidies?

 

[Keylime]

Yeah, I don't really see it myself. Not that I think it's entirely beneath the McCain camp really but it's on some reachin' shit. Is the purported connotation supposed to be "Hang the black guy" or "Hang higher taxes on you"? Either way: straws, let me grasp at them.

I would never go as far as to say that it was put in there intentionally or not.

I also, would not be surprised to find out that it had indeed been put in there on purpose.

We'll never know, so it's not worth getting into.

 

[Krowley]

Drudge report rumoring that McCain's pick will leak at 6 PM EST with a possible confirmation around 8 PM. I don't keep up with whether he's often accurate or not.

That would place it just prior to Obama's speech.

 

[polyh3dron]

Interesting fact, Google made a 25% profit last year. Should they be subjected to a windfall profits tax?

Apples, oranges and LOLbertopianism.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Putin accuses U.S. of orchestrating Georgia War

Putin says U.S. did it to help one of the presidential election candidates

If this turns out to be true... then holy shit. There goes John McCain's presidency.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

82% of individual tax payers pay income taxes. Corporations only pay 18%.

 

[Gaborn]

Apples, oranges and LOLbertopianism.

Precedent. Tax one company for making an "obscene" profit of about 9%, why not tax anyone above that line?

Also, you're now a conservative according to Ronito's definition.

 

[Eric P]

oh shit

i loved that series but haven't read it in like 9 years

 

[Barrett2]

All that sounds good, except that there's no end to it if you're calling one company's 8.5% profit "windfall profits." Why not other companies that have such "high" profit margins? About half of the fortune 500 companies make that much or more (in terms of profit margins, Exxon is the largest so obviously their profits, revenues, and costs are going to be the highest as well), so why not target them? And then move on from there, punish every single business for making the amount of profit Obama feels they're "allowed" to make. THAT's the danger.

Fuel costs are high, but they're high for everybody and that includes Exxon, their costs are higher than ever. Keep in mind for the last 30 years or so we've been paying insanely little compared to Europeans, and in fact we're STILL paying less than they do, does that mean European oil companies are getting "windfall profits"? We don't need the fear mongering, what we need is to understand the dangerous precedent of a windfall profits tax and why it's irresponsible to say that 8.5% profit, which is inline for other companies on the fortune 500 is reasonable. Obama's scaring people with revenue but then you're ignoring the implication.

While I agree that a windfall profit tax on the oil companies is basically a stupid idea, I also tend to believe that it is nothing more than good ol' fashion campaign rhetoric. I seriously doubt this legislation would actually come to pass even if Obama were elected.

And, even if Obama were to push for it and it became law, even though it is stupid from an economic perspective, IMO, at least it would be Constitutional, which is more than I can say for much of the nonsense we have seen for the last eight years.

IMO, I just want to see all this ethanol nonsense go away. I am so sick and tired of politicians using ethanol as an excuse to give farmers more free cash, courtesy of the taxpayer. Our ethanol policy is so horribly anti-competitive, it makes me sick. But thats a whole other can of worms...

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

How do you guys calculate how much money you'll be getting back under McCain's plan? I can't find it on that Obama tax cut calculator.

 

[polyh3dron]

Putin accuses U.S. of orchestrating Georgia War

McCain did start loudly beating his "foreign policy experience" drum right after this happened, playing up the "new Cold War" rhetoric.

And the Georgian president did seem like he expecting the U.S. to get involved somehow. And having this all happen on the first day of the Olympics seemed odd too.

Hurm.

When you put this all together with the fact that a member of McSame's staff is Georgia's lobbyist, this is a problem. McCain was trying to influence the US's foreign policy in the way a President would with his hawkish, bellicose remarks, and it looked like we would have been in WW3 had McCain been the Prez when this happened.

And his supporters have the AUDACITY to call Obama the "Presumptuous Nominee".

Fucking bizzaro land Republicans, fuck them all.

 

[Shiggie]

Kinda Off topic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW7s8TuvZ8U
:lol

 

[Gaborn]

While I agree that a windfall profit tax on the oil companies is basically a stupid idea, I also tend to believe that it is nothing more than good ol' fashion campaign rhetoric. I seriously doubt this legislation would actually come to pass even if Obama were elected.

And, even if Obama were to push for it and it became law, even though it is stupid from an economic perspective, IMO, at least it would be Constitutional, which is more than I can say for much of the nonsense we have seen for the last eight years.

IMO, I just want to see all this ethanol nonsense go away. I am so sick and tired of using ethanol as an excuse to give farmers more free cash, courtesy of the taxpayers. But that's a whole other can of worms...

I'm not going to defend Bush because I refused to vote for the man (don't blame me, I voted for Harry Browne and Michael Badnarik respectively) but I will say I'm not trying to attack Obama, I'm attacking the rhetoric he's using with the idiotic windfall profits tax. You call it rhetoric, I call it a threat, and a threat that people need to understand as to WHY it's a bad idea.

 

[Skiptastic]

82% of individual tax payers pay income taxes. Corporations only pay 18%.

Wait, you mean 82% of taxes comes from individuals and 18% from corporations?

Or that 82% of individuals pay income taxes and only 18% of corporations do?

 

[adamsappel]

There's a theme that recurs in your books and your speeches, both about putting country first but also about honor. I wonder if you could define honor for us?

Read it in my books.

I've read your books.

No, I'm not going to define it.

But honor in politics?

I defined it in five books. Read my books.

McCain doesn't write his own books. Mark Salter writes them.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

It's becoming more and more clear to me what has happened with John McCain.

He's being manipulated.

The man used to speak candidly, even though I often didn't agree with him. He used to be that maverick that I respected. I always felt like that even if his mind wasn't in the right place, his heart was.

But as the days/years go on, he's acting more and more like a typical Republican. In his desire to be president, he's tried to appeal to his Republican base harder and harder by adopting their views on everything.

And now it's become clear that his staff shakeup was probably orchestrated by his party to mold him into the candidate they wanted, and to use the tactics they wanted to use. McCain has become convinced that letting these people lead his campaign will enable him to become president.

McCain is not calling the shots in his campaign.

I agree. However, is this born from the 'evil' GOP not letting him run the campaign that he wants to run, or just pragmatism? As much as we want to hate the guy or the party for the campaign they're running (and I'm certainly not a fan of what I'm seeing), what choices did he have for winning? After all, although the so-called 'real' John McCain may be honorable, is he not a guy who wants to be president?

How well was the maverick angle from 2000 really going to play? Would a guy traveling the country on the Straight Talk Express campaign bus telling it like it is have been able to beat a guy who can fill stadiums with his rhetoric of change? Taking candidates for their words without cynically deriding them as still being politicians at heart, Obama has benefited the most from an unpopular predecessor and promising a completely new administration. McCain was never going to be able to beat him at that game. People clamoring for a departure from Bush were going to go with Obama.

So, what was the alternative? Run an incumbent-type campaign where you paint this change, and the man promising it as dangerous. To do that, he pretty much had to position himself as more of the same (while trying to distinguish his character, if not policies, from Bush). When the other guy has the "different kind of politician" angle locked up, John McCain 2000 never had a chance.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Precedent. Tax one company for making an "obscene" profit of about 9%, why not tax anyone above that line?

Also, you're now a conservative according to Ronito's definition.

Google doesn't sell a product. Thats the difference.

With a commodity as addictive as oil, where there is little to no competitive market pricing and little to no alternatives for the populace... their revenues have got to be justified. The problem with the oil industry is they are using their profits to stop technologic advancements that would benefit America and the world.

 

[Odrion]

Yeah, I don't really see it myself. Not that I think it's entirely beneath the McCain camp really but it's on some reachin' shit. Is the purported connotation supposed to be "Hang the black guy" or "Hang higher taxes on you"? Either way: straws, let me grasp at them.

Like I said before, it's dumb to try to find subliminal details in these messages because it makes you look like a paranoid fool and discredits the party. Besides, these ads bluntly pushes obvious falsehoods and that's what we should be focusing on.

 

[UltimaKilo]

All that sounds good, except that there's no end to it if you're calling one company's 8.5% profit "windfall profits." Why not other companies that have such "high" profit margins? About half of the fortune 500 companies make that much or more (in terms of profit margins, Exxon is the largest so obviously their profits, revenues, and costs are going to be the highest as well), so why not target them? And then move on from there, punish every single business for making the amount of profit Obama feels they're "allowed" to make. THAT's the danger.

Fuel costs are high, but they're high for everybody and that includes Exxon, their costs are higher than ever. Keep in mind for the last 30 years or so we've been paying insanely little compared to Europeans, and in fact we're STILL paying less than they do, does that mean European oil companies are getting "windfall profits"? We don't need the fear mongering, what we need is to understand the dangerous precedent of a windfall profits tax and why it's irresponsible to say that 8.5% profit, which is inline for other companies on the fortune 500 is reasonable. Obama's scaring people with revenue but then you're ignoring the implication.

This. It's very, very dangerous to start regulating how much money companies are allowed to make and tax some companies more than others. For small companies it's clear: stop making money. For large companies: leave the U.S. for China or India.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Wait, you mean 82% of taxes comes from individuals and 18% from corporations?

Or that 82% of individuals pay income taxes and only 18% of corporations do?

Former.

 

[woxel1]

If this turns out to be true... then holy shit. There goes John McCain's presidency.

Can anyone say Manchurian Candidate?

 

[Barrett2]

I'm not going to defend Bush because I refused to vote for the man (don't blame me, I voted for Harry Browne and Michael Badnarik respectively) but I will say I'm not trying to attack Obama, I'm attacking the rhetoric he's using with the idiotic windfall profits tax. You call it rhetoric, I call it a threat, and a threat that people need to understand as to WHY it's a bad idea.

I see what you are saying, but I think this kind of talk in general is to be expected from both parties. Every candidate has to cook up some 'red meat' type proposals during their campaign to help motivate the base, but once elected, these proposals go quietly into the night.

Remember Bush's flip-flop on steel tariffs? McCain's $25 gas tax coupon? Every candidate has their fair-share of hokey ideas and proposals, but they are often nothing to worry about. I don't think Obama's windfall tax proposal is any different.

 

[Gaborn]

Google doesn't sell a product. Thats the difference.

With a commodity as addictive as oil, where there is little to no competitive market pricing and little to no alternatives for the populace... their revenues have got to be justified. The problem with the oil industry is they are using their profits to stop technologic advancements that would benefit America and the world.

No they don't. Revenue is never the problem, it's a HUGE company, therefore it has the potential to bring in huge revenue. The important number is net profit margin.

Lawblob - absolutely, every president flip flops and that's unavoidable. However I can't judge a person on what I THINK they're misleading us about, I'm just going by his words. The windfall profits tax is stupid.

 

[pxleyes]

This. It's very, very dangerous to start regulating how much money companies are allowed to make and tax some companies more than others. For small companies it's clear: stop making money. For large companies: leave the U.S. for China or India.

As soon as you can legitimately compare oil companies to small business then you may have a point.

 

[reilo]

All that sounds good, except that there's no end to it if you're calling one company's 8.5% profit "windfall profits." Why not other companies that have such "high" profit margins? About half of the fortune 500 companies make that much or more (in terms of profit margins, Exxon is the largest so obviously their profits, revenues, and costs are going to be the highest as well), so why not target them? And then move on from there, punish every single business for making the amount of profit Obama feels they're "allowed" to make. THAT's the danger.

Fuel costs are high, but they're high for everybody and that includes Exxon, their costs are higher than ever. Keep in mind for the last 30 years or so we've been paying insanely little compared to Europeans, and in fact we're STILL paying less than they do, does that mean European oil companies are getting "windfall profits"? We don't need the fear mongering, what we need is to understand the dangerous precedent of a windfall profits tax and why it's irresponsible to say that 8.5% profit, which is inline for other companies on the fortune 500 is reasonable. Obama's scaring people with revenue but then you're ignoring the implication.

You know why Europeans pay so much more for gasoline than we do? BECAUSE IT IS TAXED OUT OF THE ASSHOLE. You know why Germany and many other European countries have the best infrastructure in the world? Because those high taxes on their fuel costs are used DIRECTLY to pay for said infrastructure.

Have you ever been to Europe? I have. Born and raised there for nearly 12 years. I've experienced both socio-capitalistic countries first hand and purely capitalistic societies [or as close to it as we'll ever get] like the US for 10 years now.

In Germany, we got by without a car for 3 years because Germany had in place the infrastructure for us to do so. I took the public bus to school for many years, and then when we moved closer to the city into a nicer apartment, I started walking to school. Each and every morning. That's because living inside the city in those countries is manageable and even affordable.

The reason why Windfall Profits are being targeted at OPEC companies is because they directly affect every other business and family in the nation. Does Google making a ton of money take money out of your or my pocket? Nope, because their services are optional in every sense of the word. The United States does not have the infrastructure to allow people to get around the cities they live in without a car. So, in my eyes, Obama proposing a Windfall profits tax is exactly the same as Germany having high taxes on the gasoline you buy - which is then used to pay for the things we take granted. Everyone wants to have quality roadways like the autobahn, but nobody wants to pay for it. So when you say "they pay higher taxes in Europe, don't complain!" I have to call bullshit on that because those higher gasoline costs are used to pay for a better society.

Portland is one of the better cities to live in and get around without a car because we have the infrastructure and culture to do so - but not many other cities or states do because people are afraid of having their taxes raised and used directly for better infrastructure.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

You must be AWFUL at Scrabble.


CHANG are the letters you have to work with:

HANG
CAN
HAG
NAG

...

Hmm...which of these are offensive?

CAN, HAG, NAG aren't options, the letters aren't ordered that way. They're showing "CHANG" and this Fox affiliate is claiming they can't see the "C." At least the "Bureaucrats" ad actually had a frame where only "RATS" was visible.

 

[polyh3dron]

Precedent. Tax one company for making an "obscene" profit of about 9%, why not tax anyone above that line?

Also, you're now a conservative according to Ronito's definition.

Unlike the relationship Republicans have with the word "liberal" (ooo scary), being called a conservative doesn't enrage me or anything... However if you called me a Republican I'd be pissed though.

Also, Google isn't making their obscene profits at the expense of destroying our economy. The Oil companies are making these profits due to all this insane speculation which is now allowed thanks to McCain's former financial adviser, Phil Gramm orchestrating the deregulation of the oil industry. Your utopian free market dream looks good in your head, but there are too many variables at play and whenever the market "corrects itself" as you people like to call it, it takes too long to happen and leaves way too much damage in its wake.

 

[Karma Kramer]

No they don't. Revenue is never the problem, it's a HUGE company, therefore it has the potential to bring in huge revenue. The important number is net profit margin.

Yeah, sorry that is what I meant. Their net-profit.

 

[Skiptastic]

Former.

Gotcha. Just wanted to make sure, that sentence was a bit weird.

Portland is one of the better cities to live in and get around without a car because we have the infrastructure and culture to do so - but not many other cities or states do because people are afraid of having their taxes raised and used directly for better infrastructure.

They are afraid or they simply choose not to have their taxes used for such purposes?

 

[speculawyer]

The windfalls profit tax is a bit of a cheap ploy.

However, the massive tax cuts and subsidies given to oil should all be removed immediately. The intent of those measures was to encourage further explorations. But examination of their own books show that the measures failed to get the oil companies to do more exploration, so fuck them. The GOP attempt at corporate behavior manipulation was huge failure. Giving money to a company in hopes they will do something doesn't work. They will just do whatever they think will make them more money.

 

[tanod]

No one is going to respond to him?

His/Her lengthy post addressing many more issues than what he/she initially responded to indicates to me that he/she has a hard time staying on the topic of what he/she wanted to argue in the first place.

I have neither the time or patience to argue in favor of or against an entire political platform. That debate is not suited for this medium.

 

[Odrion]

HANG
CAN
HAG
NAG

...

Hmm...which of these are offensive?

I get it! They're trying to insult naggers!

 

[gkryhewy]

They are afraid or they simply choose not to have their taxes used for such purposes?

In most of the country, people expect something for nothing with regard to infrastructure. Transit funding referenda are on a bit of a hot streak, however.

 

[Tamanon]

John McCain supports the surge!

Obama 48%
McCain 42%

Gallup.

 

[reilo]

John McCain supports the surge!

Obama 48%
McCain 42%

Gallup.

nomnomnomnom

 

[scorcho]

Fuel costs are high, but they're high for everybody and that includes Exxon, their costs are higher than ever. Keep in mind for the last 30 years or so we've been paying insanely little compared to Europeans, and in fact we're STILL paying less than they do, does that mean European oil companies are getting "windfall profits"? We don't need the fear mongering, what we need is to understand the dangerous precedent of a windfall profits tax and why it's irresponsible to say that 8.5% profit, which is inline for other companies on the fortune 500 is reasonable. Obama's scaring people with revenue but then you're ignoring the implication.

no fearmongering, but i'd expect a valid comparison.

European high gas prices = pigouvian tax levied by the gov't (upwards of 60% in some countries) to influence consumption and technological changes, and it works!

Gallup can kiss my ass - whoever said they're the worst thing to happen to political discourse in the last 20 years was right.

 

[Instigator]

Looks like the family members and close friends will be sitting behind those barriers.

It looks like the old set for Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect, minus the podium.

 

[woxel1]

nomnomnomnom

Polls are suddenly cool again!

 

[PhoenixDark]

John McCain supports the surge!

Obama 48%
McCain 42%

Gallup.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBh9c8cuthQ

 

[Odrion]

just cause I wanna see the graff

 

[reilo]

no fearmongering, but i'd expect a valid comparison.

European high gas prices = pigouvian tax levied by the gov't (upwards of 60% in some countries) to influence consumption and technological changes, and it works!

Thank you. Not only that, but like I said ad-nauseum up above, many of those high taxes also directly pay for many of the wonderful roads, bus systems, trains, trollies, and so forth that are world class.

Everyone is all up in arms about how Portland has great roadways suited for bicyclist and how we encourage it all, but having lived in Germany, it still lacks behind it in many ways.

For one, public schools take a few weeks out of our 4th school year to teach students how to ride a bike and about the rules of the road to encourage us to ride bikes. Not only that, but we are required to get a license - yes much like a driver license [but free!] - to learn how to ride a bike and the proper rules. Many of the streets and walkways are set-up for bike riding like no other.

And this... is all paid by taxes!

 

[Tamanon]

http://race42008.com/2008/08/28/relax-it-wont-be-lieberman/#comments

The major thing standing in the way of a Lieberman Vice-Presidential pick for McCain is a seemingly small thing - an RNC rule that states that a Vice Presidential nominee must have been a Republican for at least 60 days prior to nomination.

There are only two ways around that rule as far as I know - the first being that Lieberman has already switched his party affiliation a couple months ago secretly without letting anybody know (highly, highly, highly unlikely). The other option would be for the delegates to vote to waive that rule at the RNC — and it’s not hard to imagine how that would go.

Well there goes that chance!

 

[soul creator]

John McCain supports the surge!

Obama 48%
McCain 42%

Gallup.

surging like a motherfucker. National polls still suck though

scorcho: That was Dan Pfieffer from the Obama campaign

 

[reilo]

surging like a motherfucker. National polls still suck though

scorcho: That was Dan Pfieffe from the Obama campaign

Way to butcher Plouffe's name there!

 

[soul creator]

Way to butcher Plouffe's name there!

different guy

Communications director Dan Pfieffer later put it more bluntly, expressing unhappiness with the "inordinate focus on bad polling" by the media and also in the routine misinterpretation of sampling noise in the Gallup Daily poll. "The Gallup Daily is the worst thing that's happened in journalism in 10 years," he said.

although the Obama campaign does seem to like people whose name begins with D, and has double-f's in the middle of their last name!

 

[CharlieDigital]

Gaborn doesn't quite get it (I facepalm every time I read one of his posts).

The oil companies making record profits while Americans struggle for what is a basic necessity (as reilo stated, the US just doesn't have the infrastructure (and it may not be possible) for mass transit to be a viable option) is more analogous to a state university making record profits while also raising tuition and decreasing financial aid (and cackling all the way).

Google making record profits is more analogous to Toyota Making record profits. No one has to buy a Toyota and Toyota making record profits doesn't come at the expense of the livelihood of anyone (okay, maybe GM dealers :lol).

 

[Tamanon]

http://blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/08/27/mccain-and-obama-miss-filing-deadline-in-texas/

Hrm......

Section 192.031 of the Texas election code says that political parties must certify their presidential and vice-presidential candidates for the November ballot no later than 70 days before the general election. It says, “A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president placed on the ballot if before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before presidential election day, the party’s state chair signs and delivers to the secretary of state a written certification of the name’s of the party’s nominees for president and vice-president.”
[...]
At 2:30 pm Texas time, August 27, Kim Kizer of the Texas Secretary of State’s elections division says neither major party’s certification has been received in the Elections Division. The Executive Office of the Secretary of State refers all questions back to the Elections Division.

This year, neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party obeyed this law.

I know something will happen to put the Dems and Reps on the ballot, it always does, but it would be absolutely HILARIOUS if that happened.

Here's the ballot:

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/general/2008gensbs.shtml