Political Punch

Instead of focusing on the oil companies and fuel costs, McCain has the right idea, focus on promoting jobs. No amount of stimulus or windfall checks will take the place of a steady paying job. I know everyone thinks that the large companies get enough in tax breaks, but the truth is, give them a tax cut and they can create more jobs. Tax them more and they lay off and eliminate jobs. Pretty straight forward. The way to go is FairTax, and then give tax breaks to the large companies so they can create more jobs. AND, if anyone is worrying about those large companies not promoting new positions after a tax break, make it a stipulation for the break. Just a thought.....

Where is the "windfall profit" that oil companies are supposedly making? The fact of the matter is that oil companies make a far smaller proportional profit that many other American industries. Why not levy a windfall tax on Coca-Cola or McDonald's or Wal-Mart? Oil companies have made record profits in recent years, but this is not because they make more profit per gallon or dollar, it is simply because, until very recently, Americans have continued to buy more and more and more gasoline. We the People are at fault for the record oil profits, not the oil companies.

So...what does the Obama plan do?? This plan REWARDS those responsible for the oil companies' profits: We the People. We continue to buy gas like crazy, We continue to under-utilize public and other alternative forms of transportation, We continue to demand our suburban commuting lifestyle, and We crank up the heat in the winter and the AC in the summer with all of our lights and electrical gadgets burning brightly. We and our addiction to oil are the problem and Obama seeks to reward us with $1000. And what will we do with our reward...buy more oil?? And then Obama will punish corporations that provide what We the People want; corporations which already make a proportionally small profit.

What's next?? I eat too much pizza, so will Obama punish the pizza makers (who, by the way are providing the service I desire) and then reward me for my addiction with a refund check so I can buy more pizza? Am I crazy, or is this simply the most backwards and idiotic idea I've ever heard from a Presidential candidate?

But, I know Obama is not that moronic, so what's really going on here...ah...it's plain and simple: "Chicken in every pot." Obama intends on using the government bank to buy votes and at the same time blaming the "big bad guy" so he appears to be heroic. Wow. How very Washington of him. So much for a break from the old politics. I think he's been hanging out with the Clinton political machine too long. (In fact, isn't his plan simply a much larger version of the "gas tax holiday" he argued against so brilliantly?)

One word. Socialism.

I am I mistaken when I think about this plan for a windfall on oil companies to give us all a 1,000 dollar rebate that the oil companies will just make it all back at the pump? They are not stupid and they have always added taxation back to the consumer at the pump. I believe that there is corruption in big oil, but how many people out there know who it is that owns all the alternative energy companies and how many lobbyist and support may be involved in the democratic party. I don't believe the democrats have pure motives here. There is corruption on both sides. We have to study the policies ourselves. Research why we are in dire straights with social security. Much was passed by the democrats to put that in jeaopardy. We need oil, We need alternatives. We don't need a 1,000 dollar rebate gimick that Obama already opposed when Hillary presented it. Let's all work together by researching for ourselves. The internet is full of knowledge and opinion for both sides. We are intelligent and we should vote using our intelligence and conscience.

THE CURRENT CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS MUST BE COMMUNIST AGENTS, HAVING BEEN PLANTED IN THE US IN 1945 BY STALIN.

WHAT ELSE EXPLAINS THEIR STUPIDITY AND IN-EFFECTIVENESS.

WHEN PELOSI BECAME TOP DOG GAS WAS $2.10 A GALLON.....

ITS NOT BUSH, ITS NOT CHENEY, ITS THE COMMUNISTS.

I agree. This man is a fraud, and he's desparately hoping that the ignorance of the voting public will be enough for him to sneak in. It's so insulting to have to read about his plans when you know what he says is patently ridiculous and bald-face lies. He's now proposing to buy our votes with money that he will take from someone else, which in the end costs us plenty, beginning with our dignity.

Seems that during the primaries, fraud nobama said if the oil companies were made to pay the .19 tax, the oil companies would simply add the cost to the cost of the oil. Now that he is not getting anywhere in the election, he wants these same oil companies to give the US citizens something...hmmmm
Sounds like the deal with the Florida and Michigan vote, if it was for Hillary then give them only half a vote. "Now that I need these fools in Florida and Michigan, give them suckers, I mean voters a full vote.."
As I said, FRAUD

Yes, windfall profit tax. Big deal. Obama and his cronies will just use that money to keep getting more of themselves elected. He's nothing. He's an insect on the edge of the table waiting to be swatted with a newspaper. And, I am doing everything I can to see that he loses to mcCain after the way he treated Hillary Clinton. He's a waste and I hope he gets buried in November by McCain!

Dare Nigeria - you are very welcome my friend. Anytime!

Willem van Oranje:

You wrote: "Bollocks. Cellulosic ethanol is chemically identical to ethanol from other sources, such as corn starch or sugar (the word "cellulosic" simply refers to the source material.) It differs only in that it requires a greater amount of processing to make the sugar monomers available to the microorganisms that are typically used to produce ethanol by fermentation. That's the only difference.

Excuse me, but there is a BIG difference between the source of feedstocks for ethanol. Cellulose is a polymer of sugar which is differed only in one carbon's configuration from starch. That is the KEY difference for processing. There are ways to depolymerize starch, but not cellulose. If cellulose can be processed as easily as starches, then the problem of fuel vs. food goes away because you can use non-food parts of the plant for ethanol production. I never said there was any difference between the ethanol made from either cellulose or sugars and starches. You did. Ethanol is ethanol, just as water is water.

You wrote: "Biofuels are used in blends to overcome the other problems you've stated. Corn ethanol, which the US has favored for a long time because of the influence of ADM, is known to be the least efficient ethanol for a very long time. It has an effiency of less than 100 gpa (gallons per acre) where for instance ethanol from algae has an efficiency of 1800 gpa."

Absolutely - you can blend biodiesel, but with what? Petroleum diesel? I thought the idea was to get rid of petroleum diesel??? You can blend all you want, but the fact of the matter is, the biodiesel, which is a fatty acid ester has a shorter shelf life. Once it sees water and some acid, it starts to fall apart to fatty acid, which your diesel engine won't like and survive (Total Acid Number goes up). The current work on ALGAE is NOT ethanol, but for oils harvested for biodiesel. You have to get your facts straight. Algae, when stressed, will produce more oil. But either way, you're still going to have a capacity problem, because you'll NEVER get enough oil from algae at a rate that is cheaper than petroleum.

You wrote: "Biofuels are a temporary fix towards energy independence, not an end solution in terms of global warming. A lot of biofuels also a very bad environmental record. The future is electricity from wind, solar, wave, heath."

I agree only partially. Wind power is expensive because you MUST build a gas powered standby generator to ensure that power is made even when there is no wind. Solar power efficiency is WAY too low to be economical, and if you'll pony up the capital for wave, then I'm with you.

You wrote: "The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined."

I completely agree with you, but you're sidestepping the point: HOW will one capture that solar energy?? It won't matter if there is oil gushing outside your front door if you can't capture it before it runs away. The question is HOW. Good intentions won't put gas in my car or yours. We want directions and solutions, not BHO flapping his mouth.

In 1961, Kennedy wanted a man on the moon. He gave NASA pretty much an unlimited budget to get it done.

Incentive.

Obama, on the other hand, calls on the energy faeries, asks them to wave their magic wands and make energy appear.

That and he'll wants to steal from law-abiding companies.

Disincentive.

One worked, the other has already failed.

DrJohn: corn-based ethanol has always been touted by the Bush Administration, despite warnings that corn based ethanol is considered less efficient than other types of ethanol (sugar cane, algae, etc.) especially when only the vegetable itself is used and not the whole plant.

Understood.

And I will be the first one to tell you that Bush has made a number of really bad decisions.

Immigration is one. I am hardly content with the way Bush has spent, which is to say he has spent like a Democrat.

This is a gimick to get more votes. It certainly will not help lower the cost of fuel.
This man needs to get some new advisors--some with common sense. This is just another of his socialist ideas. Take from those who earn it through hard work and give to those who did not. Such a dud.

ChrisNBama, I believe you will find that within 48 hours of President Bush's signing his executive order to rescind the previous executive order banning offshore drilling, that the price of oil dropped $10 per barrel.

Obama's $1000 rebate is nothing more than a gimick like the gas tax Hillary suggested that he criticized.

The way Obama changes his mind it is likely that rebate will never happen and Obama will blame it on Republicans..

He is desperate for votes so essentially he is saying "vote for me and I'll give you $1000.
There's not enough money to make me trust Obama.
And they way he will raise taxes, we are likely to pay for our own rebate many times.

Frustated Voter: "Cellulosic biomass is highly abundant, but not convertible to ethanol."

Bollocks. Cellulosic ethanol is chemically identical to ethanol from other sources, such as corn starch or sugar (the word "cellulosic" simply refers to the source material.) It differs only in that it requires a greater amount of processing to make the sugar monomers available to the microorganisms that are typically used to produce ethanol by fermentation. That's the only difference.

Biofuels are used in blends to overcome the other problems you've stated. Corn ethanol, which the US has favored for a long time because of the influence of ADM, is known to be the least efficient ethanol for a very long time. It has an effiency of less than 100 gpa (gallons per acre) where for instance ethanol from algae has an efficiency of 1800 gpa.

Biofuels are a temporary fix towards energy independence, not an end solution in terms of global warming. A lot of biofuels also a very bad environmental record. The future is electricity from wind, solar, wave, heath.

The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined.

DrJohn: corn-based ethanol has always been touted by the Bush Administration, despite warnings that corn based ethanol is considered less efficient than other types of ethanol (sugar cane, algae, etc.) especially when only the vegetable itself is used and not the whole plant.

Yet it is the most common type of ethanol in the United States. Why?
Because of Archer Daniels Midlands, ADM.
A huge lobbyist and one of the most prominent recipients of corporate welfare.

In 1995, the Cato Institute already wrote: "ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government."

Enron loophole

"Nonsense? The fact that the storm bypassed the Gulf of Mexico oil rigs dropped the price of a barrel by over three dollars. Bush lifting the executive ban dropped the price."

Len,

You are making a leap here based on zero evidence. Supply and demand and speculation drive price. The fact that Bush removed the ban THREE WEEKS ago and oil drops the price TODAY is not a causal argument that supports your thesis.

Cheers,

Chris

Frustrated Voter,

Even Mccain has not been able to proffer any solution other that drill now, pay less. He doen't sound as someone that holds the magic wand too.

Frustrated Voter,

A million thanks for enlightening me and others. A standing ovation for your analysis.

Lets be frank here. Is it possible even in the long run to close US doors to Oil from the Middle East? My answer is an Emphatic NO!

If we drill to bring down the price of gas, it would only suffice for the short term. Surtax on Excess Profit will increase disposable income in the short term too.

Resort to biofuel will mean less grains for the growing world population to consume.

Would People rather starve so that they can turn their backs on foreign Oil? The answer is an emphatic NO too.

Will increase in Supply be the solution, it should. But this is largely dependent on the Oil Cartels - OPEC, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran etc to increase Production and create a glut in the World Oil Market.

A glut, of course will not favor the Oil Producers as it will drive down the prices of Oil, lower their Gross National Income, create storage problem with attendant cost of storage, affect the Economy, since Oil is the major FX earner of these Countries.

Production will only be increased to meet demand. These countries don't anticipate demand.

America currently has a balance of payment deficit with some of these Countries
and the US in no longer treated as the beautiful bride it used to be before 2000.

Allowing the Oil Companies to drill off-shore Oil will only be a drop of water in the Ocean as the US may not fully benefit from it. The Oil Companies are at liberty to sell to any buyer provided adequate Royalties are paid to the Government.

The Oil Companies are not charitable Organizations. They are in business to maximize Returns on Capital Invested.

So what can be done to lower Oil prices:

1. End the War in Iraq
2. Mid-wife Peace in the Middle East and the Niger Delta.
3. Agree to a compromise with Iran, no grandstanding here.
4. Embark on research for crude oil substitute other than biofuel which will create food crisis in the world.
4. Inflate your tires properly, tune up your cars to conserve fuel.

It is interesting that so many of you are in favor of the windfall profits tax. But are you aware that Congress already tried a windfall profits tax on the oil companies from 1980-1988. When that windfall profits tax was implemented it was projected that the government would take in $393 billion in additional revenue. Instead all it got was $80 billion in additional revenue over that 7 year period. BUT during that period U. S. domestic production of oil dropped between 1.2% and 4.8%. And our dependency on foreign oil increased.

And this new windfall profits tax will have the same result. Less production, higher prices and even more dependency on foreign oil.

What Sen. Obama and the Democrats are proposing is nothing more than attempting to buy your vote with the oil companies' profits. Is this the "change" that you really want?

For the record, for those who are advocating biodiesel, there are certain facts that you need to know. First, it can only be produced from plant oils, not cellulose or starches/sugars. Cellulosic biomass is highly abundant, but not convertible to ethanol. Two, biodiesel has a shorter shelf-life and it cannot be stored long enough and this increases the costs. Three - it cannot be pipelined so its transporatation costs are much higher. Ethanol is the so-called dream fuel, right? Wrong. To grow corn, you need to make fertilizer from crude oil (need to make ammonia, which comes from a reaction of hydrogen and nitrogen, and hydrogen has to come from hydrocarbons). The part of corn that is useful for ethanol is the sugar/starch portion, namely the portion that is in our food. Both biodiesel and ethanol (doesn't matter what produces the ethanol) suffer from the problem of oxygenation. It has a lower energy density so you will burn more of it to get the performance by a lower volume of gasoline or diesel. Ethanol cannot be pipelined! It attracts water and causes pipelines to corrode. So it can only be shipped by rail cars and tankers. That increases the costs substantially. All of these so-called alternatives cannot be made in the volumes that we are going to need in the near future. Both biodiesel and ethanol production will ultimately require a lot of water to process. This can't be done anywhere. These are the issues that need to be discussed. None of this "10-year" period that will be wean off of oil. There are so many problems to deal with that only in 10-years time will we only be able to define them all and get started. I'm not pro-oil, but pro-common sense. We already have the sunken capital to convert oil to gasoline, plus we have the know-how from years and years of experience on how to build and operate refineries. Without energy, our economy is doomed. We need a balanced approach, but the harsh truth is that we need oil for today, tomorrow, and for the foreseeable future.

"That said, there is no short term method to lower gas prices--including the "drill now, pay less" nonsense."

Nonsense? The fact that the storm bypassed the Gulf of Mexico oil rigs dropped the price of a barrel by over three dollars. Bush lifting the executive ban dropped the price.

Be factual, Chris or prove we folks in Bama just ain't that smart. The current short term prices are based on speculation not consumption. While I agree that the long term prospects mean we have to drill and we have to find alternatives (remember, this isn't just about price, it is also about emissions and the climate), your position and that of Obama puts the whip to the back of the Americans with permanent high price shocks rather than taking the air out of the manipulators tires.

Forcing high prices on the Americans before supply and demand does is not a winning strategy in November unless you blame McCain for it and people buy that. Neat strategy but transparent.

ChrisNBama - If I were a shareholder of oil stocks and BHO gets his windfall profits tax in, I would abandon that company in a heartbeat. Why? Because I've invested in the company for a return for my investors, namely you and your neighbors who hold bonds (401k, retirement, pensions). The oil companies to survive, won't sell you the fuel. They will relocate and incorporate in a different country - a country that has promised them that there will not be a windfall profits tax. You can kiss all of those US jobs goodbye. The only thing you have is BHO's hot air to fill your tires. It will be time to haul out the horse and buggy. If you are desperate enough to drive, you can buy imported gasoline from a company that had once been in the US. At that point, you will pay through the nose. This is the example of a level of arrogance from a neophyte who doesn't know when to shutup and just spout the populist rhetoric to get elected. People are under the impression that these "big oil" companies are just cash machines. If you want a solution, you're better off voting for someone who knows something about how the free market operates and what one can do to influence it. BHO's ideas are not new, it's called socialism.

Oil is IT for the foreseeable future.

That remains a FACT.

It is only good sense to keep billions of dollars in the US rather than send it out.

Liberals always make it sounds as though ONLY the US would be out in the waters drilling.

We're the only ones NOT there.

It's ridiculous.

For you too, Chris

Posted by: drjohn | Aug 5, 2008 9:23:02 AM

I have been posting this for months, and have several letters to the editor.

The difference between usis that I know government cannot get this done. I also know Obama wants to use a stick and that won't work either. A carrot is needed.

Obama wants a "clean enery nation." Wonderful, but without substance he sounds like a Miss America contestant. I want world peace too, but if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

"How are you going to regulate the world market?

Please, let's hear it.

What it CAN do is allow for more supply. That is the most effective method of lowering prices.

Always has been."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Of course we can't regulate world markets. We have a certain influence, but not that great.

That said, there is no short term method to lower gas prices--including the "drill now, pay less" nonsense.

The only solution is to ween ourselves off oil, through alternatives. Which Obama is proposing, a sort of Manhattan Project to end the age of oil, at least foreign oil sources within 10 years.

McCain's big idea is to drill more domestically. We sit on 3% of world supplies and we consume 25% of the world's oil. India and China are exponentially growing an appetite for the black stuff, and demand is vastly outpacing supply.

It is of a paramount national security interest, that we take drastic measures to inculcate our selves from this coming disaster.

Obama offers that vision, McCain offers more of the same.

Rodney

Here's another

"If you combine the rising cost of fuel, with the potentially rising cost of corn, we could see grocery prices climbing higher, at a time when many families are already facing lay-offs, downsizing and mortgage foreclosures."

I know all about biodiesel.

It can be made in a cellulosic process, and that's what you're really trying to say, but there's just not enough stuff around.

BTW, Jake, you never did get an answer as to what a "windfall profit" is.

I doubt I am surprising you! ;-)

DRJOHN
YOU HAVE A LOT TO SAY BUT WILL NOT DO THE RESEARCH WHAT I HAVE STATED IS FACTS NOT SOME REPUB BS we need to start now TO HELL WITH CHINA AND INDIA THEY HAVE A GROWING PROBLEM OF THEIR OWN AND THE USA IS WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO ME ---WHAT ABOUT YOU
GOODBY

"DRJOHN
DO THE RESEARCH BIODIESEL HAS NO DOWNSIDE---as what is left is high quality cattle feed--a boost to food supply----farmers have been doing this for 40 years that i am aware of."

Rodney

You have to start calculating what you need in land and in water.

Growing crops for fuel shuts out crops for food. It is a simple thing.

Here:

Corn biofuel 'dangerously oversold' as green energy

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12283-corn-biofuel-dangerously-oversold-as-green-energy.html

I have many more.

got to go guys
please do the research on biodiesel to start with----YOU WILL GET AN EYEOPENER.

"IN APPROX 10 TO 20 YEARS IF AROUND AND NOTHING IS CHANGED YOU WILL LEARN A VERY HARD LESSON."

I don't think so. We have easily more than 300 years of oil.

Nonetheless, I am all for alternatives. I have already called for incentivizing ownership of electic cars and a Manhattan project for fuel cells.

But nothing gets cleaner until China and India are on board and that's not going to happen in your lifetime.

DRJOHN
DO THE RESEARCH BIODIESEL HAS NO DOWNSIDE---as what is left is high quality cattle feed--a boost to food supply----farmers have been doing this for 40 years that i am aware of.

Who is going to end up paying that windfalltax in the end?

in the 70 we had an oil embargo---and now we are paying for not doing something about it then-----try making your own alternate fuel --AND FIND OUT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES TO YOU. dont take my word for anything--DO THE RESEARCH SOME OF YOU ARE SUPER AT IT,HELP PUT AN END TO THE MESS AND STOP BEING USED.

"I'm not suggesting that our government federalize the energy sector, but by God it has a right to regulate it, and when necessary, intervene to help consumers who are victimized by circumstances beyond their control."

How are you going to regulate the world market?

Please, let's hear it.

What it CAN do is allow for more supply. That is the most effective method of lowering prices.

Always has been.

"DRJOHN
YOU NEED TO DO SOME RESEARCH-----biodiesel"

Rodney

Growing crops for fuel makes food compete with fuel, meaning less food for poor people. It's already happening.

Is that what you want?

It also places a severe strain on the fresh water supply.

Is that what you want?

kerry
perhaps you dont realize how much of a grip oil has on our polititions---if obama does not give a little they will block any other progress--check out the last 8 years--and while at it ckeck who is getting oil contracts in iraq---should be very interesting

Barack Obama, remarks at campaign event, Springfield, MO, 7/30/08 "Now the latest SCHEME is well, we're going to drill offshore”. He called it a SCHEME. He was against offshore drilling. Two days later he changes his mind because the country is in a crisis. Mr. Obama the country is not in a crisis although many are toughing it out at the gas pumps and at the supermarkets. You are in a crisis because you are down at the polls. The energy reserves are for "emergencies" not to be used to help you gain voters. Has there been one thing you have "pledged" or "promised" that you have not changed your mind on since February 2008?

DRJOHN
YOU NEED TO DO SOME RESEARCH-----biodiesel could start being produced in growing amounts tomorrow it is the most lowtec fuel to produce----we have plenty of vacant land to grow what is needed----it would put a big dent in oil use.

DRJON
IN APPROX 10 TO 20 YEARS IF AROUND AND NOTHING IS CHANGED YOU WILL LEARN A VERY HARD LESSON.

"

Why should they do that?

What is American about the government seizing profits existent after all taxes are paid?

Who decides what's fair?

What industry is next?

When in time did the government ever take money and redistribute it efficiently?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. John,

YOU are the government. The government is some other out their on a foreign shore. The government is comprised of representatives who decide what is best for the greater public good. If the government, comprised of people like you, feel that peeling off profits to help those hard hit by energy costs is the right approach, then, by definition, it is.

Ronald Reagan poisoned the well when he claimed that "government is the problem". Well, government can be the solution too.

I'm not suggesting that our government federalize the energy sector, but by God it has a right to regulate it, and when necessary, intervene to help consumers who are victimized by circumstances beyond their control.

mccain will tell you what you want to hear---but the hard decisions have to be made and bring this oil era to an end----and dont be fools and go for the drill drill bs as it will solve absolutely nothing.WE HAVE THE TEC TO MAKE THE CHANGES---NOW WE NEED GOVERNMENT TO INVEST IN US--AND HELP WITH INCENTIVES---WE CAN MAKE BIODIESEL FOR AROUND 1.00 PER GALLON---AND WHAT IS LEFT IS HIGH GRADE CATTLE FEED--THIS IS A NOBRAINER--WHY IS IT NOT A PRIORITY---ONCE AGAIN THE GRIP OF BIG OIL IN OUR GOVERNMENT.

"what w need is alternate energy----"

Oh Rodney, Rodney

Which alternative energy?

When?

How soon can you deliver it?

Which alternative fuel is going to heat all the homes in the US?

Why should they do that?

What is American about the government seizing profits existent after all taxes are paid?

Who decides what's fair?

What industry is next?

When in time did the government ever take money and redistribute it efficiently?

what w need is alternate energy----what the hell is wrong with our country---in the past 8 years --NOTHING---our government needs to end the red tape and private investers would take care of the problem---but first break the grip that big oil has on our country----between big oil here and opec they have it all under price controll--and are bleeding the life out of us.

FAE
YOU WOULD PREFER BOMB BOMB IRAN MCCAIN--AND WITH SOMEONE IN THE MILITARY.

just so mccain does not want summer gas tax relief---that one scared the hell out of most of us---300,000 construction workers out of work----that one was really-DUMB

what we must do is get off oil for fuel---then the oil going to other countries would be positive flow of monies coming into our country-----and then tax oil companies appropriatly.do what we have the tec to do and turn a negative into a positive.

The most dangerous thing a politician can propose is to take money they do not deserve from a legitimate company, I don't care how much profit that company makes! This is America - not Russia!!!

I've got it!!!!!!We will tax Big Oil 100 billion of their windfall profits. Just to be fair we divide it evenly between every man, woman and child. 300 million people. Everyone will receive $333.33333333333333333.... dollars. The great thing is that since 333.33333333333333333... goes on to infinity if we need more all we have to do is move the decimal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Problem solved.

Thank you, thank you very much.

The money that Obama is seeking to redistribute is profit. This is money AFTER including operating expenses and the like. This money that the oil companies are reaping in has nothing to do with them running their businesses better, but on circumstances largely beyond their control. As a result, their product is pricier and American's, who have no short term alternative, are stuck paying for it. To take a slice of that profit and redistribute to help consumer's pay for the oil companies product, is not "stupid", it's smart. And John McCain has no short term solution other than to say, drill now pay less. Which of course is misleading. If oil companies began drilling today, we wouldn't see savings for another 7-10 years. Moreover, there's no assurance that the oil would even go to Americans, the oil would likely be sold to China and India whose oil requirements are growing exponentially.

Whose money will Obama take next??
Maybe owners of sports teams....maybe Bill Gates....
Income redistribution is socialism...be careful what you ask for

Sounds a lot like the Messiah has adopted the Pelosi plan, releasing 3 to 4 days worth of crude from the strategic reserves, sending out $1000 checks and launching a windfall profits tax on oil. Impressive!!

Don't think for a minute that if oil companies are required to "help out" via a windfall profits tax to pay for the $1000 manna the Messiah wants to feed the people that the oil companies will find a way to make the people pay 2X in higher prices to compensate. Dumb idea Obama!!

To Frank So. H

I agree with you. With all the pandering going on it is hard to tell which end is up anymore.

In a four year period one oil company had a profit of 19 billion and paid 64 billion in taxes.

Whom is shafting whom?

Yeah right....poor Obama...mean Republicans....blahblahblah..get over it whiney liberal pinko's....!!!

For those that mock the "windfall profits tax" as a gimmick analogous to the "gas tax holiday". You need to get your facts straight. A few states have enacted such a holiday, and the results were a depleted highway transportation fund, and a failure of the gas companies to pass on the savings to the consumer, so yes, a "gas tax holiday" is a gimmick.

Now, shaving profits and distributing them in the form of rebates is concrete, short term relief. It isn't a gimmick, because it's quantifiable. You can argue whether it's a good thing or not, even Obama admits it isn't "classic economic" theory, but it IS real short term relief, and on that basis should be welcomed as a real idea.

I really don't understand the ridicule the republican's are heaping on Obama for the audacity of pointing out the blatant obvious: that rotated tires with proper inflation, and regular tune-ups, conserve gas. Now, if that were the extent of Obama's energy proposals, then scorn would be warranted. It is a position advocated by Governor Schwarzenegger, Governor Crist, and that bastion of liberal hippies: NASCAR.

I understand the political side of the argument: to paint Obama as the second coming of Jimmy Carter. But this fails to persuade, or break through. Most American's don't remember Jimmy Carter. It simply isn't visceral.

How will the republican's attack Obama next? By mocking him for arguing that black fathers should help raise and support their children? The GOP is scraping the bottom of the barrel, and it's a shallow barrel at that.

Yet another bone headed idea. Impose a windfall profits tax on the oil companies and they will be certain to pass the added expense to the consumer. Someone needs to inform BO that Cuba and North Korea gave Marxism a good long try and it failed.

"Just put more air in your tires." That will solve the energy crisis! Obama is full of hot air, he could supply it!

This is windfall profit tax should apply to American gas companies and foreign-owned gas companies, like Shell.

As long as their make money here and profited here, they should be taxed. Demostic company or not.

Let the oil company keep their record high profit.

Anyone who is against the windfall profit tax, I think their attitudes are the following:

Who cares about the people.
Let their houses forclosed.
Let them be homeless.
Let them be poor.
So what if their can not afford milk or food.
So what if many poeple are out of jobs.
so what if people are under financial stress; consequently, caused many broken families, and children without Moms or without Dads.

Even thought anything will help, but no.

So what about the American people.

Just let the Oil companies keep their big fat profit.

Any money is good, especially when the economy is as bad as it is now. Any form of relief is good for the people. Did not News stated that it was helpful the first stimulus fund.

I think this second stimulus fund is also much needed with all economic indicators still point down.

Serve them right for gauging us this long and this much.

Oil Industry is not free competition, it is oligapoly (only 5 company).It is almost like monopoly. If we have choice of other alternative fuel, we of course will not pay your high gas price. The oil company take the advantage of the situation. this industry needed to be regulated.

This windfall profit tax is not only right. It is long over due.

I don't think I will vote for anyone who vote against this windfall profit tax proposal. This was my money that I was robbed by the oil company with their high price all this couple years. I deserve it. I will be very, very unhappy if anyone vote against it.

Republican or Democratic, the one that is willing to good for general public is the one whom the general public wants.

Any politician against that kind of proposal is poticial suicidal. It does not matter how good it is worded to against it, it will have adverse effect politically.

I think I have taken advantage by the oil companies all these years, especailly the last 3 to 4 years. Finally, there is someone willing to stand up to them for the people.

obviously, should be "throw under the bus..."

I don't like oil company. Tax them. I think they deserve it.

Since the oil company make so much money this couple years, it is only right, they distribute some to those who needed or are not fortunate as they are, I think?

I think the Republican will be opposing this financial relief for the middle and lower income people. I wonder why? Does Oil Company has anything to do with this?