Hillary's Plan is what form of government?

Question

Currently in YA Hillary Clinton has a question that includes this sentence: "Hillary Clinton has a plan to use excess oil company profits to invest in alternative energy so share your ideas on the issue with her."

Does anyone else's spine shiver when reading the term 'excess oil profits'?

Would anyone here who someday hopes to own a company want the government to decide how much you can or cannot earn and then SWOOP in and take it by force?

Answer 1

Form of government? The Constitution, not the President, determines the form of government in this country.

Your question makes no sense.

Answer 2

It truly is an attempt to get gullible people! She is a socialist in and out! People who support socialism do not understand it inside and out! They are taken by the promises even though history doesn't support them! There is no such thing as "excess" oil profits. Where the hell does she come up with this? Why would government be a better alternative for research than the companies? What has the government done recently as far as technology that has surpassed the competitive market! No matter where you look, people like Hitlary are all around us! Confused by the big government disguise into believing that freedom is the enemy when in all reality the reason why so many people live so well is because of competitive markets. Africa is still poor because of people like Hitlary and Bush! Big government pushers with slightly different agendas! Neither of them has the best for our nation in hand! ~ Libertarian

Answer 3

No, it doesn't, I don't have a Chicken Little mentality. More than that, I'm having a real difficult time feeling sorrow for those who profit so mightily from Exxon Oil. A REAL difficult time. Sen. Clinton isn't going to change our form of government, overdramatic much? Like it or not, this country is being held hostage by Big Oil. Does anyone really think they are going to be happy about alternative energy and that they aren't going to use their "excess" profits to try and halt its progress? I see it as a way to try and ensure they don't try to doom that progress, and possibly even force them to face that if they wish to survive into the next century intact, they need to not only explore alternative energy, but make plans to take an active part in it. As Bowie sang, "Ch ch ch ch changes..."

Answer 4

I caught that, too. Where in the constitution is the part about the president resdistributing excess profits? For that matter where is the definition of excessive profits? Where is the authority for government provided healthcare?

To the democrats, the constitution is somthing to get around not something that shapes their philosophy. Hillary's philosophy is strictly out of the Socialist hand book.


.

Answer 5

The she-Clinton would LOVE to finish pushing the government over to SOCIALISM. There are no more conservatives. Now the GOP are liberals, and Dems are socialists. Look at most of her (and Dems in general) ideals: entitlement society; tax everything to pay for programs to "help" us; business=bad; personal responsibility= bad;

HMMM- why work at all? Elect she-Clinton and the government will just let us all go on "entitlements"

Answer 6

What they need to do is stop charging such an "excess" the name Hillary Clinton makes my spine shiver, I think a woman president would be AWESOME and she'd probably do a bang up job...just not that woman.

Answer 7

She is insane. Not only that, she panders to a dimly lit, but vocal group of people who are either too stupid or unwilling to see that she is a colossal waste of space. Never in my life have I heard of such idiotic policies being offered to the public under the guise of "progress". What this psycho doesn't understand (like many of her followers) is that markets work, plain and simple. This country was founded by people who were escaping tyranny and oppressive government and vowed to begin anew in the hopes of never letting the government get too powerful. However, it appears as though Clinton missed ninth grade history and someone thinks that government knows better than markets do.

For whatever reason, governments seem to think that if they force restrictions on market prices or behavior, that they'll influence the outcome for the better. This is an elementary mistake but I'm not surprised that Democrats are making it. For instance, when government fixes a minimum wage (price floor), the supply of labor exceeds the amount of labor demanded by employers. In other words, it causes unemployment because employers aren't willing to pay more for a task than it's worth. How is a person that gets fired from a menial job better off just because the government raised the minimum wage? The point here is that markets will always, 100% of the time; gravitate back to an equilibrium point. At point at which the supply of a good/service meets the demand for it, at a price the seller and buyer agree on. Clinton's lack of information so basic is alarming because she either has no idea of what her policies' implications are or she has one and doesn't care. Either way, people like her should never be allowed near politics because they're simply too damn dumb to try to make a difference. In reality, government can't help you at all. Furthermore, this is a capitalist society and Clinton wants to usher in sweeping socialism and communism. I bet George Washington is spinning in his grave. Is nothing sacred anymore? Apparently people are prepared to let this country become one more of the few socialist states in the world and piss all over the Constitution.

Apologies for the sentimental rant there, but with regards to the actual question, yes, I am terribly concerned with terms like that. NO ONE in their right mind would produce if the potential profits were going to be taxed away. And why oil companies? I've already stated in another answer of mine that oil companies stand to make 8 cents profit on one gallon of gasoline and the government stands to make 40 cents. Hillary would like a little more though. The other problem I have with that term is the word "excess". Since when is there a definition of "excess" profits? This is a free enterprise system in which people are free to do what they like. If people like Hillary have that big of a problem with oil companies making bigger profits than your average private business, then I suggest you stop driving around in limos and stop flying cross-country in private jets. She also wants to tax these companies for forming capital, which is another stupid idea. As firms invest in capital, they'll need labor to operate that capital. As they need labor, they'll create jobs. However, no one will invest in capital if it's going to be taxed back to the Stone Age, and as a result, possible new jobs will never be formed. The logical question is what good is Hillary really achieving through these idiotic proposals?

The motivation people have to produce is to make a profit on their investment. It’s common to hear the idiots out there in sociology or women’s studies to whine about how “greedy” corporations are, but this just proves their lack of critical thinking ability. Past that, it has been a growing trend to vilify the oil industry for absolutely no reason. If their large profits are your problem, consider that they supply a huge amount of a product to meet a huge demand. Of course they’re going to have higher profits than your average business. Moreover, to say corporations are “greedy” is an absolute joke. First of all, I don’t see the executives coming out of a back alley with a gun and ski mask forcing you to pay a higher price (for the record, real oil prices are cheaper than in the past, despite nominal increases). Secondly, and more importantly, I could be the greediest person in the world, but that doesn’t mean I’ll get everything I want. These companies are operating in a free market economy and people are purchasing their product for consumption. No forcible practices are being used to get people to buy gas. If you drive a car, you need gas to get it to move. If a select group of crusaders have a personal vendetta against the oil companies, then stop buying their product. You absolutely cannot institute sweeping restrictions on an economy on which many other people who aren’t as dumb as Hillary rely. If there is one thing I wish, it’s that more people start paying more attention to economics and stop listening to sensationalists and fanatics like Hillary Clinton.

Answer 8

A lot of the answers to her question pointed out that they didn't agree with her notion of robbing profits from private companies. I wouldn't be surprised if she drops that approach.

Answer 9

Hillary made excess profit in cattle futures.

Cow farts contribute to warming more than cars.

Hillary should ante up her overdue bull to reduce cow farts.

Answer 10

A lot of times I find some democrats approach to business disheartining. They sound as bad as a typical republican discussing the morality of social services. Bill gained the Presidency on fiscal conservatism, and, should remind Hillary of same.

Answer 11

Exxon made 12 Billion in a single quarter, I think that they could contribute to some govt. alternate energy plan.

It's like a tax. Unless you think taxes are all socialist (and you are free to argue that) than its not a wacky idea.