The conventional wisdom has been that, as the Democratic race for the 2008 nomination is shaking out, Hillary Clinton is the candidate running from the "right" - not as a real conservative, of course, but as more conservative than the other major candidates, particularly on national security and Iraq policy. In her DNC speech the other day, she makes sure no one mistakes this for any form of economic conservatism by advocating "taking" the oil companies' profits:
Larry Kudlow relates that P.J. O'Rourke described Hillary as "Hugo Chavez in a pantsuit" on CNBC this weekend. Quite apt.
Hillary and others have not specified whether they also plan to "take" the profits of the many industries and companies which earned a greater profit margin than Big Oil last year, including Coca-Cola, Microsoft, and McDonald's. Naturally, her call for confiscation of private profits didn't merit any reaction at all from the Left or the fMSM, since it fits in well with their theory of economics.
And they said Communism was dead . . .
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race, Hillary
Comments (6)
Ahhh, time for another blog... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Lee | February 6, 2007 10:02 PM | Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
Ahhh, time for another blogger's lie. Hillary didn't say seize oil company profits, now did she? The headline is a lie. Watch the clip!
What she said is "take" oil company profits, and the way the government takes profits away in this instance is to to have a windfall profits tax.
But stating a lie like Hillary wanting to "Seize Oil Company Profits" sounds so much better, doesn't it? Ignore that it's a lie, and just roll with it...
1. Posted by Lee | February 6, 2007 10:02 PM |
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on February 6, 2007 22:02
2. Posted by Jim Addison | February 7, 2007 1:40 AM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
She noted the oil companies had posted record profits last year, and said "I want to take those profits and . . ."
Where in hell do you see anything about "windfall profits" in there?
Yet you imagine that is what she meant, although what she said is quite different. For government to "take" private profits is indeed a seizure.
It is you who appear to be prevaricating here by making up your own fanciful interpretation and pretending it is the truth. It isn't even very "truthy."
2. Posted by Jim Addison | February 7, 2007 1:40 AM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 01:40
3. Posted by Lee | February 7, 2007 8:37 AM | Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
Let me explain it again, Jim. Watch my lips, it may help with your comprehension.
Hillary was suggesting we take oil company profits and plow them into alternative energy development. The way that the government "takes" profits is through taxes.
What has been discussed in political circles whenever there are obscene profits for the oil companies is a "windfall profits tax". This quote is from my link above.
Clinton is a U.S. Senator, Jim. A windfall profit tax is the mechanism Clinton and any office holder would use. It was discussed recently, and seems to come up every time there are obscene oil company profits.
At no time whatsoever (as far as you've shown at least) has Hillary suggested that oil company profits be "seized". She never said that.
Your headline is a lie.
3. Posted by Lee | February 7, 2007 8:37 AM |
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 08:37
4. Posted by Jimmy | February 7, 2007 8:48 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
take seize same thing, obsene profit is a bad thing? Its the oil companies that research new technology not overpaid wasteful inefective government agencies.
4. Posted by Jimmy | February 7, 2007 8:48 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 08:48
5. Posted by J.R. | February 7, 2007 2:25 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Lee, that's not what she said. She said take the oil companies profits! She never mentions any windfall tax.
You know Lee, your hypocrisy is amazing. Here you are blatantly stating something different then Clinton is saying, and interpret it to better fit yoru argument. But yet you try an hijack a comment thread chastizing JayTea for doing the same thing about the LT. Wahtada case on the main page.
And in each comment thread you claim the headline of the post is a lie. And it's a lie why? Becuase it doesn't fit your world view.
5. Posted by J.R. | February 7, 2007 2:25 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on February 7, 2007 14:25
6. Posted by JW | February 8, 2007 12:19 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
A thief by any other name is still a thief. Even if Ms. Clinton meant to say "windfall profits tax", which she failed to do, what is that other than a P.C. way to take legally earned profits?
It never ceases to amaze me that educated people don't understand the difference between profits and profit margins.
6. Posted by JW | February 8, 2007 12:19 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 8, 2007 12:19