madness, thy name is washington ([info]writerspleasure) wrote in [info]liberal,
@ 2008-05-22 18:51:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
maxine waters threatens to nationalize american oil companies
no news stories about it yet, but the blogosphere is catching on fire.

one transcription: "this liberal will call for socializ... ... ... taking over of the oil companies."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=maxine+waters+nationalize+oil

sample URL: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080522161514AAEKbEI

so. venezuela's doing just fine with that socialism thing.

edit: pending actual audio, here's another transcription: " ... this Liberal will be all about Taking Over, and Running, all of your companies ... " - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080522165031AAxWmWV - second answerer

(Post a new comment)


[info]hey_its_michael
2008-05-23 01:53 am UTC (link)
Assuming that this is accurate, it's downright disgusting.

However, it's not entirely surprising, considering she is pretty radical in her politics.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]heirtoruin
2008-05-23 01:57 am UTC (link)
I remember her from the Clinton years.



I was LOLLING then.. and I was all of like 21.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Channeling the mainstream liberal
[info]seanr
2008-05-23 02:19 am UTC (link)
Way too much socialism, how about a hefty windLOL profits tax instead. That way we only implicitly concede that the state couldn't efficiently run an ant farm, yet still "give back to the people".

Also:

" ... this Liberal will be all about Taking Over, and Running, all of your companies ... "

are belong to us? Someone better make one of those funny pics out of this.

(Reply to this)


[info]heirtoruin
2008-05-23 02:33 am UTC (link)
I think she hesisitated because she knew all those secret conversations about not mention socialist agenda would bite her in the vagina.

(Reply to this)


[info]darthzeth
2008-05-23 02:47 am UTC (link)
video: http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/22/video-maxine-waters-threatens-to-nationalize-americas-oil-industry//

(Reply to this)


[info]madscience
2008-05-23 05:18 am UTC (link)
I advocate forcing all corporations to reorganize as non-profits. I do NOT support the government owing or operating them.

That said, I think nationalizing the oil industry would be an improvement over allowing it to continue directly and indirectly profiting from the five hundred billion taxpayer dollars we've dumped into the oil war. Talk about embezzlement...

Edited at 2008-05-23 05:20 am UTC

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]writerspleasure
2008-05-23 05:24 am UTC (link)
forcing u.s. corporations to reorganize as non-profits would be catastrophic in every way.

your claims about the war and oil profits are, to say the least, suspect. for one thing, demand from china and india. for another, state ownership of oil.

you're just grasping at whatever can be cobbled together to whip at corporations.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]kylebee
2008-05-23 05:48 am UTC (link)
I advocate forcing all corporations to reorganize as non-profits.

This won't do anything. They'll just incorporate in Canada or another foreign country and make a wholly-owned subsidiary in the United States and write off all their expenses here. It's also embarrassingly unconstitutional to force this, but what do you care about the Bill of Rights, I guess?

That said, I think nationalizing the oil industry would be an improvement over allowing it to continue directly and indirectly profiting from the five hundred billion taxpayer dollars we've dumped into the oil war.

Sources would be nice. I have no doubts that oil companies indirectly profit from the war in Iraq, but to suggest that they played a role in it screams conspiracy. Evidence, please?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]androgylicious
2008-05-23 09:18 am UTC (link)
This won't do anything. They'll just incorporate in Canada or another foreign country and make a wholly-owned subsidiary in the United States and write off all their expenses here.

You're absolutely right about this.


It's also embarrassingly unconstitutional to force this, but what do you care about the Bill of Rights, I guess?

And absolutely wrong about this. There's nothing unconstitutional about bad policy. Nor is there anything unconstitutional about eliminating the corporate form (and all for-profit business forms) and only recognizing non-profit organizations. Any state has the right to do this, but it would be disastrous if they chose to do so.

It would not infringe on any provision in the Constitution, however. There's no right to "have protected business organizations that allow for profitable earnings" embedded in the Constitution. The Constitutional merely protects you from having your property seized without due process of law; or your property from being taken for public use without "just compensation."

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]madscience
2008-05-23 09:54 am UTC (link)
They'll just incorporate in Canada . . .

Then they won't do business here. Or they'll pay crippling tariffs for the privilege.

It's also embarrassingly unconstitutional to force this . . .

It's absolutely not unconstitutional if the owners of the property are compensated for its real value.

to suggest that they played a role in it screams conspiracy

Children conspire to steal candy. Anyone who doubts for one second that conspiracy is standard procedure when billions of dollars and the control of nations is at stake is a fucking idiot.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jerseycajun
2008-05-23 04:39 pm UTC (link)
Why would you be relying on Eminent Domain in the first place, if your stated goal has nothing to do with owning property, but rather coercing corporations to operate in a different manner? Or are you referring to your stated belief that it's preferable to nationalize (have the government own and operate corporate entities) than the status quo?

Regardless, the constitution can't be read to allow blanket Eminent Domain use for nationalizing industry. It can only be pursued (legitimately) when in service to fulfilling other stated powers of federal government such as providing a military. Otherwise, there would be nothing to stop it from nationalizing mom 'n pop stores the week after it nationalizes corporate industry. It would stretch credulity to the breaking point to assume that the constitution allows for this, but there's nothing in that line of reasoning that precludes it going that far or further.

Several founders insisted that the bill of rights include an amendment for non-enumerated rights because they were afraid of the assumption that a finite list would be read in a finite fashion. There was no such concern when listing the powers of government because the way they read it, non-enumerated powers were not to be assumed to exist.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]madscience, 2008-05-24 09:18 pm UTC

[info]debergerac
2008-05-25 01:24 am UTC (link)
Then they won't do business here. Or they'll pay crippling tariffs for the privilege.

you must admire kim il-jung. your economic vision will create a new north korea.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]madscience, 2008-05-25 01:30 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]debergerac, 2008-05-25 01:52 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]madscience, 2008-05-25 03:18 am UTC

[info]heirtoruin
2008-05-25 01:52 pm UTC (link)
It's absolutely not unconstitutional if the owners of the property are compensated for its real value.

Good thing this isn't what he was talking about. Not to mention, probably a knowingly obtuse response.

Edited at 2008-05-25 01:53 pm UTC

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]ghoststrider
2008-05-26 03:50 pm UTC (link)
It's absolutely not unconstitutional if the owners of the property are compensated for its real value.

And how, pray tell, will you afford another 2.5 trillion dollars on top of the massive amount Bush has forced us to spend for this ridiculously dumb war?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]madscience, 2008-05-26 07:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]writerspleasure, 2008-05-26 07:56 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]madscience, 2008-05-26 08:26 pm UTC
your system just fell apart - [info]writerspleasure, 2008-05-26 08:36 pm UTC
Re: your system just fell apart - [info]madscience, 2008-05-26 09:00 pm UTC
Re: your system just fell apart - [info]writerspleasure, 2008-05-26 11:23 pm UTC
Re: your system just fell apart - [info]madscience, 2008-05-26 11:34 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ghoststrider, 2008-05-26 11:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]madscience, 2008-05-26 11:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]ghoststrider, 2008-05-27 12:10 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]madscience, 2008-05-27 12:25 am UTC

[info]squidb0i
2008-05-25 05:19 pm UTC (link)
This.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]tekcat
2008-05-23 06:11 am UTC (link)
Wow, after this you should change in your profile description from "Libertarian anarchist" to "Socialist".

Seriously, is there an insentive for a non-profit company to do well? Profits are the driving force of the economy. Secondly, nationalizing any private property would violate the Constitution big time!
And lastly, please compare percent of what oil companies make from a gallon of gas to what government (feds + state) makes in taxing each gallon.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]madscience
2008-05-23 09:45 am UTC (link)
I thought it already said "libertarian socialist". I'll change it right now.

is there an insentive [sic] for a non-profit company to do well?

Yes – the continued employment of its employees. Being a non-profit doesn't mean that the employees don't get paid. The executives of a lot of non-profits make a shit-ton of money. Non-profit simply means that nobody who's not contributing to the company's productivity gets to skim off the top.

Profits are the driving force of the economy.

False. The personal profit motive is the driving force of a free-market economy. Profit, in the Wall Street sense, is something entirely different, is utterly immoral, and should be illegal.

Secondly, nationalizing any private property would violate the Constitution big time!

Not if the owner is fairly compensated for the real value of the property. In the case of shares in a business, the real value is the amount paid for the shares, minus the amount received in dividends, with all values adjusted for inflation, plus a profit derived from a fixed interest rate. In the mandatory stock buyback, that interest rate would be set through legislation. For future investments in nonprofits, it would be set by the free market.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]tekcat
2008-05-23 02:33 pm UTC (link)
"libertarian socialist"... hm... sounds like an oxymoron, try "liberal socialist" :)

non-profits: you forgot about little thing called return on the investments. without investments not alot of businesses would exist today that create jobs and drive the economy overall.

profits: why it is immoral to make money? and what is the difference between "personal" profit and "wall street" profit? In both cases money made, and they're used to drive the economy up.

nationalizing: you mention the word "forcing". If I am a shareholder, it should be up to me to sell my shares or not. period. They are mine, they are my property, and the Constitution protects private property. So, forcing me to give them up even on generous terms is illegal.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]madscience, 2008-05-24 08:46 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]meus_ovatio, 2008-05-26 07:50 am UTC

[info]androgylicious
2008-05-23 09:12 am UTC (link)
I advocate forcing all corporations to reorganize as non-profits. I do NOT support the government owing or operating them.

Why would they desire to stay in business if you are *forcing* them to lose money? (And if you're turning them into non-profits, they are in fact, losing money. Even if they manage to "break even" on the books for all of eternity, inflation would mean their investment would always be decreasing in value.)


That said, I think nationalizing the oil industry would be an improvement over allowing it to continue directly and indirectly profiting from the five hundred billion taxpayer dollars we've dumped into the oil war. Talk about embezzlement...

I think you give Bush way too much credit for having a coherent objective in Iraq. I truly don't believe Iraq was about oil; it was even worse than that. It was about remolding the world in the American image (the neo-conservative dream). At least blood-for-oil is rational, even if despicable.

I'd also say the hatred for the oil companies in most of middle America is highly irrational. They're not really all that different from any other industry. If you want to kill oil, give people incentives not to buy it. In order to do that, you're going to have to incentive alternatives and/or disincentive oil (however, you'll find the latter is not necessarily popular).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]madscience
2008-05-23 09:50 am UTC (link)
if you're turning them into non-profits, they are in fact, losing money

False. Many non-profits rake in tons of money, and their employees get very rich. Non-profit simply means that the books balance after wages are paid. Nobody who doesn't actually work for the company gets to skim off the top.

inflation would mean their investment would always be decreasing in value

You're not thinking of the investors as separate from the business they're investing in. Under my plan, the investors would not own the business. Nobody would own it. Investors would make their money by charging interest at a rate determined by the free market.

I think you give Bush way too much credit . . .

Cheney, Rumsfield, and Bush Sr. probably had more to do with planning it than lil' Shrubby.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]androgylicious
2008-05-23 10:22 am UTC (link)
False. Many non-profits rake in tons of money, and their employees get very rich. Non-profit simply means that the books balance after wages are paid. Nobody who doesn't actually work for the company gets to skim off the top.

You're making an argument similar to Hillary's gas tax proposal; the negatives of the system stay the same, you simply make it more convoluted and change the terms.

First off, you're essentially saying that all the "investors" would have to work for the company and get paid a salary. Hence, there would be "profits" under your proposal; you merely disguised them as "wages." In essence, you're not promoting change of the system at all; just advocating a needlessly complicated way of reaching the same result as you would have before.

Next, getting rid of the corporate business form in order to exclusively have what amounts to debt-financed partnerships (and that is what you are promoting in fact) would be highly detrimental to the goal of economic efficiency since it would discourage large groups of individuals from pooling resources in a centralized business operation. Many of the things we have in our society are only available because of economies of scale.


Investors would make their money by charging interest at a rate determined by the free market.

This is called "debt financing" and a "rate determined by the free market" implies "profits." Your plan does not make any sense. So you're basically saying that we should re-name corporations, change them all into partnerships, require them to adopt an overly complicated profit system that achieves the same end result (except you refuse to call them "profits"), and saying they all have to be financed via 100% debt. This is what you call a recipe for failure.

Why would anyone be willing to lend to these "non-profit" partnerships? What motivation do the lenders have? If the lenders don't provide debt financing, then where is the capital going to come from? Why would upper management not take all the excess ("non-")profits for themselves? Who keeps upper management accountable? How are these enterprises formed in the first place since they have no options other than debt financing? What's the point in requiring people who have capital already to borrow money, form a company where they take all the ("non-")profits, then simply pay the debt back with their own capital?


Cheney, Rumsfield, and Bush Sr. probably had more to do with planning it than lil' Shrubby.

I think you're missing the point.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]heirtoruin, 2008-05-23 11:37 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]madscience, 2008-05-24 09:07 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]squidb0i, 2008-05-25 05:21 pm UTC

[info]heirtoruin
2008-05-23 11:32 am UTC (link)
I advocate forcing all corporations to reorganize as non-profits.


Can you make your own clothes?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]madscience
2008-05-24 08:36 pm UTC (link)
Yes. But it's hyperbole to assert that my plan would require that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]heirtoruin
2008-05-25 03:54 am UTC (link)
Nobody is going to do anything without profit on a massive scale. Anyone with the skill would simply sell clothing locally and be unincorporated.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]madscience, 2008-05-25 04:43 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]heirtoruin, 2008-05-25 12:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]madscience, 2008-05-25 08:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]heirtoruin, 2008-05-25 09:16 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]madscience, 2008-05-26 01:42 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]heirtoruin, 2008-05-26 03:07 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]heirtoruin, 2008-05-25 09:17 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]madscience, 2008-05-26 01:46 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]heirtoruin, 2008-05-26 03:06 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]madscience, 2008-05-26 03:32 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]heirtoruin, 2008-05-26 01:17 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]madscience, 2008-05-26 07:50 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]writerspleasure, 2008-05-26 07:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]madscience, 2008-05-26 08:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]writerspleasure, 2008-05-26 08:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]writerspleasure, 2008-05-26 07:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]madscience, 2008-05-26 08:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]writerspleasure, 2008-05-26 11:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]madscience, 2008-05-26 11:38 pm UTC

[info]mumbalo_jack
2008-05-23 12:28 pm UTC (link)
Doesn't surprise me coming from this racist bitch: Waters has been criticized for her comments regarding the Los Angeles riots of 1992. In defense of the people that looted stores and damaged property, Waters said "If you call it a riot it sounds like it was just a bunch of crazy people who went out and did bad things for no reason. I maintain it was somewhat understandable, if not acceptable. So I call it a rebellion." She also said it was "a spontaneous reaction to a lot of injustice" and "The anger in my district is righteous. I'm just as angry as they are." She responded to the mass looting of Korean-owned stores by saying: "There were mothers who took this as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes. They are not crooks. Everybody in the street was not a thug or a hood."

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…