Obama Drops Big Oil Tax as Prices Plunge

[Mammon]

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflas...8124_176271.htm

Oil has since sunk below $50 per barrel, and with the country facing a deep recession, the incoming Administration has put new taxes on the back burner.

He said he was disturbed to see the Independent Petroleum Association of America applauding the move. "President-elect Obama was not elected so we could read headlines that the oil industry is pleased," says Passacantando.

Obama didn't raise taxes and he pissed off the environmentalists?

What do you make of this?

I think it's good news to say the least.

[Ordr]

He's not in office yet so this is essentially meaningless to me.

(Not your post, mind you, but the announcement.)

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflas...8124_176271.htm

Obama didn't raise taxes and he pissed off the environmentalists?

What do you make of this?

I think it's good news to say the least.

[fountainhead777]

hahaha. He did not do it for any principles or morals, he did it because the gain was not there anymore. Most taxes are done by percentage. If the price just dropped by over half of its value and demand has decreased then there is not enough gain to make it worth doing.

Think of it this way he is a looter who just realized there is not enough to loot from big oil anymore so he has to find another industry to exploit.

[adrock3215]

Well, it's not a bad thing.

I think that people don't understand that Obama is, at heart, an utter pragmatist. This means in practice that he is unwilling to take a principled stance on anything, and that his policies are determined in the moment according to "what works." He's repackaged pragmatism into what he calls "common-sense politics." This is what makes him so appealing to the centrists in this country (and so dangerous).

[aequalsa]

Well, it's not a bad thing.

I think that people don't understand that Obama is, at heart, an utter pragmatist. This means in practice that he is unwilling to take a principled stance on anything, and that his policies are determined in the moment according to "what works." He's repackaged pragmatism into what he calls "common-sense politics." This is what makes him so appealing to the centrists in this country (and so dangerous).

And how. The last "pragmatist" we had was FDR

The plan was for a windfall-profits tax on oil over $80 a barrel.

That's what I make of it. It was a tax on oil that is over $80 a barrel. "President elect" Obama didn't end the tax. The tax ended itself.

Next we will hear that he eliminated the tax bear sterns has to pay. Shucks! Dude must be an Objectivist.

[Benpercent]

Tomorrow's another day and a brand new, completely unrelated line of thinking for the pragmatist at heart. As Ordr said, he's not in office yet so he could very well do a 180 once he's in. His flip-flopping on so many promises already means we can't count on anything he says. When he was on The View (my grandmother watches it!) he said his first priority was going to be the socializing health insurance, er, making healthcare available to everyone, but now it's the economy.

So who knows who bama is?

[Mammon]

Shucks! Dude must be an Objectivist.

Well, I was going to start this thread off saying "Definitely a Marxist here, not raising taxes!"

I'd rather have someone who is capable of changing their minds then someone who stubbornly goes forward with a wrong idea.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Actually the gas tax in the US is a constant number of cents per gallon, so percentage considerations do not apply.

[Thales]

Well, it's not a bad thing.

I think that people don't understand that Obama is, at heart, an utter pragmatist.

Why do you understand that? I don't get it. Nothing about him says "I'm a pragmatist". I just don't see that at all. I hope you're right, but his past says the reverse. There is nothing "pragmatic" about his associations, for example. Bill Ayers isn't someone you befriend if you want to be "pragmatic."

His past is what it is, and there is no way he's going to change those core values. The pressure from the left, hard left, will wear on him and he will cave. That's what I think.

[fountainhead777]

ah, my mistake. Still according to what aequalsa said it still ends when it ceases to be profitable at looting. so the general premise remains the same

[Jake_Ellison]

Well, it's not a bad thing.

I think that people don't understand that Obama is, at heart, an utter pragmatist. This means in practice that he is unwilling to take a principled stance on anything, and that his policies are determined in the moment according to "what works." He's repackaged pragmatism into what he calls "common-sense politics." This is what makes him so appealing to the centrists in this country (and so dangerous).

Don't mistake pragmatist with demagogue. He's not going to do what he thinks will work, he'll do what he thinks people will like.

[adrock3215]

Why do you understand that? I don't get it. Nothing about him says "I'm a pragmatist". I just don't see that at all.

Read his book The Audacity of Hope. If you can get through his bland and boring prose you will find that the man is a disgusting, power-hungry, super pragmatist unable to take any total position on any issue. The entire book goes something like this: "Well, this issue is really important. We should do something about it. The Left recommends *this*, but I only agree with half of their recommendation because it's too extreme. The right recommends *this*, but I only agree with half of their recommendation because it's too extreme. We need to embrace "common sense politics" because things are not so black and white. Everybody has important points, so we should listen to all perspectives and make a calculated decision. That's what the founding fathers said to do."

This occurs in every chapter on every issue he discusses. The man has no principles. He's nothing. He's a total empty suit who rejects ideology simply because ideas are an inconvenient obstacle for his power grabs.

[fletch]

Read his book The Audacity of Hope. If you can get through his bland and boring prose you will find that the man is a disgusting, power-hungry, super pragmatist unable to take any total position on any issue. The entire book goes something like this: "Well, this issue is really important. We should do something about it. The Left recommends *this*, but I only agree with half of their recommendation because it's too extreme. The right recommends *this*, but I only agree with half of their recommendation because it's too extreme. We need to embrace "common sense politics" because things are not so black and white. Everybody has important points, so we should listen to all perspectives and make a calculated decision. That's what the founding fathers said to do."

That is interesting. My only question would be, what left wing positions did this guy view as too extreme? As far as I can tell, he seems to embrace every left wing position without question. I dont recall a single time where he said the solution to anything lies with the free market. He may turn out to be a pragmatist, but his whole history is that of a far left ideologue.

[KurtColville]

Obama isn't a pragmatist in the sense that he's liable to take any position whatsoever that meets the criterion of political gain. There are plenty of policy positions that he could take that would get him political support: easing gun control laws; easing regulations on small businesses; occasional, highly pulicized "tough talk" about Iran and North Korea followed by feckless diplomacy (a la Bush); minor restrictions on abortions and federally-funded stem cell research, and others.

But he won't be taking any of those positions, and instead will be opposing them, because he is opposed to those values. Pragmatism occupies the full political spectrum in America. At the ends of the spectrum are liberals and conservatives. Obama sits on the leftist side; he is a leftist pragmatist. He will fight the conservative pragmatists. He will compromise in all kinds of ways in his drive to institute socialism in America, but they will be compromises in which socialism, not freedom and not conservatism, comes out ahead.

[gags]

Kurt, he certainly seems to be a leftist pragmatist. From what I've seen, he is willing to take one step back in order to take two steps forward. On the other hand, preserving and expanding his personal power is likely the goal that comes before all others.

[Bastian Hayek]

Well, it's not a bad thing.

I think that people don't understand that Obama is, at heart, an utter pragmatist. This means in practice that he is unwilling to take a principled stance on anything, and that his policies are determined in the moment according to "what works."

Capitalism works.

I mean this honestly, since I don't yet know about every aspect of Objectivist philosophy: I would like to know what the objection to Pragmatism is regarding the results. Would an honest Pragmatist not come to Capitalism in the end? I know his way is wrong, but what about the end? I never fully understood that.

[brian0918]

There is no "in the end" for a pragmatist. What solves the problems (or buys the votes) of the moment are all that matter.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Okay, let's say the Pragmatist Party gets elected, and the Pragmatist Party is persuaded that LFC "works". So they implement it.

Of course we know somebody out there would fall on hard times--either because they have the mentality of Hank Readen's brother, or because, well, shit happens every once in a while. In fact in a nation of 300,000,000 there'd be a number of these people.

The Pragmatist Party would easily be persuaded to help these people out, after all the tax to do so would be 1/10th of one percent. Well then what about the people that didn't quite meet the bar to get aid? It's not fair to them! And the cycle repeats itself.

You see the problem here, I hope. So long as you justify things by how well they work, you won't manage to keep a Laissez Faire Capitalist system.