Obama Gives Energy Speech in Lansing, MI

[2006Skins]

Currently on CNN and Fox News now.

So far he's done what he's been doing; blame DC politicians and oil companies for making profits.

About 15 min into the speech, he said we can't drill out of the problem, but that we need to give every American a $1000 energy tax rebate for by the profits of oil companies.

Also said he wants to creat "Green Jobs" for citizens of the US, and we will not need oil from the Middle East and Vanezuela in 10 years. So when you think of global warming, think jobs (not higher taxes :laugh: )

[twa]

Interesting that he and Pelosi call for releasing oil from the strategic reserve to lower prices,yet think opening more areas to drilling to increase supply will not help...the ultimate in short term thinking.

[Koolblue13]

So basically, he still has no plan and no answers, but can deliver a speech that sounds great.

Take money from oil companies and just give it to Americans and not expect them to raise the price.

Use tax dollars to create more government jobs, but do so without increasing taxes.

I just don't get it.

[@DCGoldPants]

Its stupid.

Drilling won't produce results until McCain is in his 80's....maybe 90's.

Opening reserves and giving rebates doesn't actually SOLVE anything.

Didn't McCain talk about some sort of "prize" for whoever can develop clean renewable energy?

I say the US Gov't offers 10 BILLION to the private company who can come up with something that hits the market 1st.

10 Billion not enough? Fine, 100 Billion to the Company who can get the United States to use at least 80% less oil.

[RedlightG20]

He's just saying whatever the people want to hear. More money for us? Great! More jobs? Great!

But HOW is he going to do this?

I'm still trying to figure out why he flipped on offshore drilling this past week when before he was staunchly against it. Oh wait there was that survey...

[Thiebear]

Wet fingers in the air for both sides..

[zoony]

About 15 min into the speech, he said we can't drill out of the problem, but that we need to give every American a $1000 energy tax rebate for by the profits of oil companies.

Did he really say this? REALLY? I'm speechless. Can someone confirm?

Thanks.

[PeterMP]

Interesting that he and Pelosi call for releasing oil from the strategic reserve to lower prices,yet think opening more areas to drilling to increase supply will not help...the ultimate in short term thinking.

I actually had to google to make sure he actually suggested this.

I really don't think elections in this country can get any worse :doh: .

[PeterMP]

Did he really say this? REALLY? I'm speechless. Can someone confirm?

Thanks.

"I believe we should immediately give every working family in America a $1,000 energy rebate, and we should pay for it with part of the record profits that the oil companies are making right now."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/new_energy_for_america.html

[zoony]

"I believe we should immediately give every working family in America a $1,000 energy rebate, and we should pay for it with part of the record profits that the oil companies are making right now."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/new_energy_for_america.html

1- According to DJTJ, this is unconstitutional. So either Obama is pandering for votes with a platform that he KNOWS is against the law and will not be approved, or he plans on bypassing the Constitution and implementing it anyways.

2- A sad day for capitalism and what this country stands for. If I'm an oil executive, I simply move offshore and take my jobs and profits with me. There are plenty of other countries who would love to collect taxes on my revenue, and would love for my company to provide wealth and opportunity for its populace.

3- I'm now without a candidate.

4- It will be interesting to see the Obama supporters spin this one.

[Thiebear]

|

|

|

V

psst

[zoony]

Next, we should punish pharmaceuticals. They're evil.

And we should also punish the automakers. Not the American ones... the Japanese and European companies that build plants over here. We should make them pay extra, and we should give that money to everyone who votes for me.

Oh, don't forget Apple computer. They make entirely too much money, and having an iPod/iPhone is a right that I have. After all, they posted $1billion in profits for just the 1st quarter of last year. That's waaaaay too much money. Where do they get off? They need some good old fashioned humbling, and I think Obama is the guy to do it. I should get part of that money.

[willmb5]

Can he really be serious?

It's sad to watch a sinking ship. Hopefully both candidates wise up before this election happens. This is downright assault on capitalism which has built America into the great country it is. One of these two (McCain, Obama) needs to tell us what they really think instead of just trying to win votes through fear, exagerration, and attack ads.

I want the truth!

[PeterMP]

1- According to DJTJ, this is unconstitutional. So either Obama is pandering for votes with a platform that he KNOWS is against the law and will not be approved, or he plans on bypassing the Constitution and implementing it anyways.

The GOP certainly states that Carter put in a windfall tax for oil companies.

I don't really understand how this would be unconstitutional.

Here is an explanation from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windfall_profits_tax

The tax was based on the price of a barrell of oil as compared to the price you paid at the pump:

"The act was intended to recover the profits earned by oil producers as a result of the sharp increase in oil prices brought about by the OPEC oil embargo. "Despite its name, the crude oil windfall profit tax . . . was not a tax on profits. It was an excise tax . . . imposed on the difference between the market price of oil, which was technically referred to as the removal price, and a statutory 1979 base price that was adjusted quarterly for inflation and state severance taxes." "

[zoony]

The GOP certainly states that Carter put in a windfall tax for oil companies.

I don't really understand how this would be unconstitutional.

Here is an explanation from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windfall_profits_tax

The tax was based on the price of a barrell of oil as compared to the price you paid at the pump:

"The act was intended to recover the profits earned by oil producers as a result of the sharp increase in oil prices brought about by the OPEC oil embargo. "Despite its name, the crude oil windfall profit tax . . . was not a tax on profits. It was an excise tax . . . imposed on the difference between the market price of oil, which was technically referred to as the removal price, and a statutory 1979 base price that was adjusted quarterly for inflation and state severance taxes." "

The search feature isn't working. :mad: DJTJ is a lawyer and we got into a discussion about this, where I was assured that the Democratic talking points about taxing record oil company profits was irrelevant b/c it would never hold up in court.

....

[Burgold]

Next, we should punish pharmaceuticals. They're evil.

Yes, they are.

I definately Obama is pandering on the rebate. He opposed the tax stimulus check which I applauded him for, but this is just a different version of it. It's a dumb idea, but likely just a stupid politician line designed to get votes.

On the energy issue, I think McCain's approach (copied from Jackson Pollock's approach to painting) is superior. Obama has a few good ideas within his energy philosophy, but his plan isn't very good... yet (I'm hoping for better)

[PeterMP]

The search feature isn't working. :mad: DJTJ is a lawyer and we got into a discussion about this, where I was assured that the Democratic talking points about taxing record oil company profits was irrelevant b/c it would never hold up in court.

....

Well, according to wikipedia Carter did it by putting an excise tax on the difference between the price of a barrell of oil and the price at the pump.

The law was rescinded under Reagan when the price of oil came down. Not because the court found it unconstitutional. Obviously, this is a different court so you could see a different result, but I don't honestly know or understand why this would be Unconstitutional.

Clearly, different products are taxed differently at all sorts of different levels (e.g. excise taxes, tariffs, sales tax (at the state and national level). None of that, to my knowledge, has ever been decleared unconstitutional.

[SUSkinsFan]

Yes, they are.

I definately Obama is pandering on the rebate. He opposed the tax stimulus check which I applauded him for, but this is just a different version of it. It's a dumb idea, but likely just a stupid politician line designed to get votes.

On the energy issue, I think McCain's approach (copied from Jackson Pollock's approach to painting) is superior. Obama has a few good ideas within his energy philosophy, but his plan isn't very good... yet (I'm hoping for better)

I like alot about McCain's energy policy.

My one question (since I didn't hear the speech), is Obama calling for an additional windfall tax to pay for the rebate, or is he calling for tax breaks to the oil companies (for R&D etc.) to be ended?

[PeterMP]

I like alot about McCain's energy policy.

My one question (since I didn't hear the speech), is Obama calling for an additional windfall tax to pay for the rebate, or is he calling for tax breaks to the oil companies (for R&D etc.) to be ended?

He's calling for both. He specifically mentioned the winfall tax when talking about the rebate.

I posted the transcript above.

[Heisenberg]

Hmmmm . . . who is this Bob Barr guy again?

[PeterMP]

He opposed the tax stimulus check which I applauded him for, but this is just a different version of it.

I don't think he did.

He oppossed the gas tax holiday over the summer.

Was he really against the tax stimulush check, but for this?

[jpyaks3]

I don't think he did.

He oppossed the gas tax holiday over the summer.

Was he really against the tax stimulush check, but for this?

I am assuming you are talking Obama. Obama was against the first stimulus check on the basis that it included too many people. He wanted to focus the stimulus check on the lower/lower middle classes. These people in theory would invest more back into the economy then people who can afford to just put it in the bank. So he proposed a different plan. Here is a good article on the plan and the ratings for the proposed plans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/22/AR2008012202614.html

Barack Obama: A-minus. I criticized his previous tax plan, but Obama is at the head of the class with an intelligently designed, $120 billion stimulus plan. He would speed a $250 tax credit to most workers, followed by another $250, triggered automatically, if the economy continues on its sour path. Obama would direct a similar rebate to low- and middle-income seniors, who are also apt to spend and could get checks quickly. One demerit: Obama omits any increase in food stamp benefits, which Moody's estimates would have the greatest bang for the buck, $1.73 for every dollar spent.

For Comparison

John McCain: D-plus. The senator should have his plan sent back with "Did you read this assignment?" scrawled in red ink. There's a respectable argument that stimulus isn't needed, wouldn't be effective and could be counterproductive. But the normally straight-talking McCain doesn't make it. Instead, he proposes permanent tax cuts -- cutting corporate rates, increasing investment breaks, eliminating the alternative minimum tax -- masquerading as a stimulus plan.

[Duncan]

It's always nice when liberals talk about "working families" and defining it by an arbitrary income level. If you make more than $60K a year you somehow are no longer a working family.

What he is wants to do is buy votes but the result is to subsidize energy use.

If the government subsidizes gasoline use it will increase demand. What is the incentive to conserve gasoline, carpool, take public transportation, etc. if the government is going to take away that incentive.

Demand won't decrease and Obama certainly doesn't want to increase supply. The result is even higher prices.

This "plan" is an absolute joke.

[jpyaks3]

First off the gas tax holiday is a joke that really serves no benefit other then reduced tax dollars for the government. I havent heard one economist who thought that was a good idea. Obama's plan to use the SPR to lower gas prices and fund the rebate at least has some merit. He plans to sell light crude to be replaced with dirty or sour crude (which takes longer to refine) and using the differences in price to fund the energy rebate. This wouldnt really affect the emergency reserves negatively we just wouldnt be able to access some of it immediately. I am still not a big fan of this as it really doesnt address the problem but it is light years ahead of gas tax holidays and would have an effect on the price of gasoline.

Also inflating your tires properly should increase mileage by 3% and regular tuneups should add another 3-4 %. Offshore drilling we will see the price effects 20 years down the road and it will only affect prices by 1%. And the McCain camp mocks the idea? Yet the Department of Energy and NASCAR and Schwarzenegger and Crist endores the idea.

Obama saying he is open to compromise that would include offshore drilling isnt a flip flop, he continues to express his reserves about doing it he simply understands that sometimes compromises need to be made, and for this to be painted as a flip flop is pretty ridiculous.

[DjTj]

Well, according to wikipedia Carter did it by putting an excise tax on the difference between the price of a barrell of oil and the price at the pump.

That wikipedia link was pretty interesting, but the tax didn't measure the price at the pump; it was just based on the cost of a barrel of oil - the government was taking a percentage of the increase in crude prices.

The law was rescinded under Reagan when the price of oil came down. Not because the court found it unconstitutional. Obviously, this is a different court so you could see a different result, but I don't honestly know or understand why this would be Unconstitutional.

Clearly, different products are taxed differently at all sorts of different levels (e.g. excise taxes, tariffs, sales tax (at the state and national level). None of that, to my knowledge, has ever been decleared unconstitutional.

I actually don't remember what I posted before, but a tax actually targeted at specific corporations, especially a post hoc one, would certainly be unconstitutional. Putting an excise tax on the price of crude, however, would be perfectly legitimate, and if that's what the "windfall profits" tax really is, then I don't really see a problem with that.

...Actually, I think it's kind of weird that excise taxes are generally based on barrels or bushels or gallons rather than a percentage of the price of those commodities ... wouldn't it make more sense to tax by percentage? Maybe it makes the record-keeping more difficult, but with everything done through electronic transactions these days, it shouldn't be that hard anymore.

In any case, it's not at all clear what Obama is proposing with that line in his speech. What I do like, however, is that the Democrats have started to cave on domestic drilling, even if only as a compromise.

Like all compromises, this one has its drawbacks. It includes a limited amount of new offshore drilling, and while I still don't believe that's a particularly meaningful short-term or long-term solution, I am willing to consider it if it's necessary to actually pass a comprehensive plan. I am not interested in making the perfect the enemy of the good - particularly since there is so much good in this compromise that would actually reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

It's the only common sense position, and it's good to see that common sense is starting to win this debate.