Little by little...

Bit by bit...

We see Bush-Lite exposed for what it is, was and always has been.

What are "excess profits"?

I guess maybe you want to pay a little more income tax because of your "excess salary"?

Look, do you want $8/gallon gas?

I'm glad it is no longer talked about. Taxing Windfall profits is not the solution.

Invest in clean energy and impose a higher tax on gasoline to pay for the research. The only for sure way to force people to think before driving is to have higher gas prices.

When the prices for gas are higher, more people will find it sensible to buy a car with better gas mileage. Now that gas is below $2.00 again, the rush for an economy car has mellowed out quite a bit.

This further confirms suspicions that Obama is one of the reptilian humanoids known as The Elite (AKA, The Global Elite, or the Babylonian Brotherhood). They are well known for their shape-shifting capability!

Elite campaigns are often funded by Big Oil because Big Oil provides the reptilian humanoids with petro-chemically derived life substances, preserving the Elite's Life Force.

"Government" Elites ensure the secret production of Life Force for "Business" Elites. These two groups then trade positions so the former "Government" Elites can be re-energized with Life Force!

The Elite are wholly consumed with Life Force and will ultimately do anything to get more and more of it! They are obsessed with the problem of how to extract all Life Force from the humanoid populace without exciting the humanoid fight/flight response!

OMG! Thanks for the smile.

For anyone eager to criticize, I'd like to point out that it would be more effective to wait until after he takes office. At this point, he hasn't fulfilled ANY of his campaign promises. Why focus on just one?

This strikes me as a rather stupid thing to hold against Obama. The whole point to a windfall profits tax was to punish the oil companies for punishing consumers at the pump. Since the gas price has dropped through the floor, owing to a drop in demand and the selling off of tons of oil commodities in the wake of our economic collapse, there's no good reason to implement it now.

I want a president who's less interested in being consistent, and more interested in doing things right, with real purpose and function.

There are a couple of points worth noting:

1.) The only way to invest in clean energy is to actually have the resources to do it. Presumably, this comes from revenue streams and most government revenue streams come from taxes.
2.) Obama hasn't taken office yet, but we should press him to ensure that he addresses soaring gas and heating oil costs.
3.) The windfall tax is an option, I suppose, but it's not the only option out there.

Sorry folks. As a committed liberal, I can't get on board with taxing oil companies more than any other company. American consumers complaining about high oil prices are like cocaine addicts complaining about high coke prices.

You want lower oil and gas profits? Then STOP using those products. Very simple. WE as consumers have far more power than the media (especially the broadcast idiots) would have us believe.

The profits of oil companies NEVER depends on the price of oil. The price of oil determines the value of their reserves, but integerated oil companies (as all majors are) can make their profits regardless of the price of oil. Exxon can make $15 billion in a quarter when the price of oil is below $50 a barrel. I believe that we should tax every barrel of imported oil to make the cost always be at least $80 a barrel. This would insure the viability of alternative energy, since domestic production can NEVER make up the difference (contrary to what most Republicans say, and most Americans seem to believe).

what's the point of a windfall profits tax? It's useless. Let them profit, just quit SUBSIDISING them with massive military expenditures. Tax the polution they produce, NOT their profits.

Reuters has a piece linked under today's news on www.RealityChex.com in which an Obama spokesman cites the drop in oil prices as the excuse. But it doesn't matter if the price is $1/bbl, if oil companies like Exxon are making billions overnight, that's a windfall.

It looks to me as if Nominee Jim Jones, whose "interest" in the relationship between oil & national security extends right to his board membership at Chevron, has already had his influence on Obama policy. (Stories on Jones on both "Linkenblogs" & "Cabinet Appts." pages of www.RealityChex.com.) I am not liking what I'm reading. Thanks for this important post, Nick.

When gas was pushing $6.00 a gallon and the oil companies were laughing all the way to the bank I agreed with a windfall profit tax as a way to funnel some of the excessive excesses back into the economy. It would have been a temporary tax in any event. Now that the prices are down the tax cuts for research and other non-issues afforded to the oil companies should still be revoked and regulations or legislation enacted to force at least three new refineries to be built at the co-expense of oil and government maybe like a 80-20 split (respectively).

For what it's worth, oil company profits are higher now than they were when gas was near US$5 a gallon.

But, anyone who's expecting Obama to actually keep any of his campaign promises is living in Fantasyland. Yea, he will be better than Bush - but who wouldn't? Even I would.....

...simply pragmatism at work.

Thank you for brightening my day.

Every week there is a new conspiracy theory about Mr. Obama..."Obama is one of the reptilian humanoids known as The Elite"

This is nice to know seeing how we all thought he was a Arab, Muslim, Socialist, Terrorist. I am on pins and needleds to see what else he morphs into by the end of four years. So now we know for now, he is an alien. Nice.

Windfall profits are a horrible idea, for any industry, at any time. We cannot expect the government to properly use that money, and for an industry with such dramatic historical ups and downs it is irresponsible handicap them for short-term big gains without recognizing the inevitable decline for which they must prepare. The oil companies need to be subjected to the same tax rate as other industries, no more, no less, and should not be punished for making good to their shareholders and employees in the last few years after taking many years of punishing losses to get to this point.

There are now no windfall profits to tax, so why the vicious attacks on Obama's character? Sounds like you're looking for a reason to hate him, or an excuse because you always have. Obama will be remembered as a great man while your type will be remembered as a societal problem similar to a bad skin disease that resisted all treatment. The racist disease will soon be all but gone in America! Thank God!

Hmmm, what are megalomaniacal, bigger than-life-Oil interest[s] flush with oodles of cash that no lowly wind fall profit tax would begin to diminish to do? Install [their] general to a top Obama post? Check. Can you say post election meeting with McCain? Who just so happened to have a good friend newly recommended NSA nominee General James Jones or sit-on-the-Chevron-board Jones. Coincidence? Maybe but unlikely. Nominee Jones wasted little time laying out the 'change' battle plan. Did anyone notice in some of his first post nomination comments his use of the word immediate followed by restarting Nuclear Power with new plant construction and begin off shore drilling? These were the lucky buggars at the top of t[his] list? Alternatives were mentioned further down. They were not described as immediate but phased. Some by 2010 but a goal of 2050 was not out of the question. Wow another 40 years BEFORE we as a country could be off oil...is that true? Welcome to the United States of Americrude version 5.0. 1.0 arguably began when Reagan removed [at the behest of ?] the solar panels from [Jimmy's] White House. How Sweet crude it is!

FIRST? FIRST? FIRST? Where on Earth have you guys lived? FISA, Patriot Act, eliminating Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, renegotiting NAFTA, having an actual timetable for troop withdrawl....good grief. This is not the first.

OMG!!!
The man isnt even PRESIDENT yet!! GOOD GOD!!!
What is wrong with you people.. you are worse than the hacks on the right! You are eating your own!!
Just sit back, shut up, and wait to see what he does!! GEEZ! This is just sick!!
You're already beating him down and he hasn't even taken the oath yet.
Give him a chance!!

Tony Smith observes: FIRST? FIRST? FIRST? Where on Earth have you guys lived? FISA, Patriot Act, eliminating Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, renegotiting NAFTA, having an actual timetable for troop withdrawl....good grief. This is not the first.

Oh, and then there was the promise to limit his campaign spending to the public funding system...
www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/06/8758_obama_opts_out.html

Then there's his promise from his Senate campaign to "...at some point, say 'NO' to George Bush on his war funding". (He's said 'YES' to George Bush's war funding on every single bill that passed through the Senate.)

"Common Sense" demands that we: Just sit back, shut up, and wait to see what he does!!
...
Give him a chance!!

As I replied to "Robert" on another thread, when he suggested: I was thinking maybe we could give Obama a chance first?

"We've given him a chance.
We've elected him.
Now, we begin to see, rather clearly, which way he intends to direct his administration's efforts, and it's not the direction many of his most ardent supporters expected it would be."

"So: Protest Now, apply pressure NOW, or wait till the continuation of Bush's policies is a fait accompli, and protest then?"

"Which one do you think will have greater benefit?"

What you're suggesting is on a par with the suggestions we heard from the NeoCons who told us, as George Bush was finalizing his invasion plans for Iraq, putting troops onto ships, putting aircraft into forward staging positions: "Just keep your cool. No one is launching an invasion at this time. We're only preparing for the possibility that Saddam Hussein will force us into one."
Well, the anti-war folks who followed that advise and kept quiet no doubt regretted their silence later on.

If what we see shaping up indicates that President Obama will NOT be following the paths he led us to believe he would, while he campaigned for our votes, then I firmly believe NOW is the time to register discontent. Not after the deal is done!

I'm so glad I got my $500 we contributed to his campaign refunded after he caved on FISA.

He's going to be WORSE than Bush you can tell already: the lie pile is growing faster than Bush's ever did, and he's not even in office yet!

Gee...I was under the impression that Obama doesn't become Prez until Jan. 20th.

Your ignorance would seem less ignorant if you did less speculating and more reacting to actual things that have happened.

Last time I checked making a change to your website doesn't cause any laws to be enacted.

But then again...I've got common sense.

"I didn't know he was Prez yet" tells us: Gee...I was under the impression that Obama doesn't become Prez until Jan. 20th.

Then I guess maybe he shouldn't be so out-in-public making as big a stir as possible about his cabinet appointments, and having members of his staff make statements regarding what his policies are going to be.

Your ignorance would seem less ignorant if you did less speculating and more reacting to actual things that have happened.

Your blinders are showing.
Things ARE happening.
He's appointing people to very high level gov't policy-making positions, and making changes to the policies he said he'd follow while he was trying to land our votes.
Things are happening.
We're reacting accordingly.

Ignore in haste.
Repent in leisure.

Obama is simply doing what he's told by the elite behind the curtain. His job is to sugarcoat the globalist agenda. Bush/Clinton/Obama all share the same master.

Gwen notices: Bush/Clinton/Obama all share the same master.

He who has eyes to see, let him see, and he who has ears to hear, let him hear.

I appreciate the great point. But on the other hand, the way his transition team went about doing it smacks of secrecy and, quite frankly, wasn't the sort of thing I was expecting out of an Obama administration. It's the sort of thing I'd have expected of...oh, I don't know... Bush.

"By the way, on October 30, ExxonMobil reported its quarterly earnings. It netted $14.83 billion, setting a national record for quarterly profits"

Oh, the profits are there. Don't believe the hype for a second. This was what we in the hood call a "b*tch move" by yet another Democrat. We thought an Obama administration would have more cojones than that. Then again, he filled it with Clinton heads, an indicator of the corporate direction this administration seems to be headed.

Yeah, he hasn't even taken office yet, and in just three weeks he's done more in putting together a team than Bush has done as the first openly Fascist dictator of the USA the whole year.

Darlene, NO ONE rises to such heights of power in this world but what they are one of the Shape-Shifting Reptilian Aliens!

Everybody knows that!

Both Bill & Hillary are SSRAs!

Even the Queen of England is a SSRA!

David Icke has shown the world!![/attempted sarcastic humor]

Couple of things, when evualating any campaign promise the "situation on the ground" needs to be considered. Fact is were are in a different circumstance then we were in this summer. The economy is worse and gas prices are lower. So not only would a windfall profit tax net less government revenue BUT it would also require more political capital and be harder to tax.

Now I think that Obama should be called on this. If he's deviating from campaign promises he should explain why. If he has a reasonable explanation than so be it.

Let's see...

A: Obama-blinders-wearer "Common Sense" tells us, essentially, he hasn't done anything yet.

Then,

B: Obama-blinders-wearer "L.D. Freitas" tells us he's done more in putting together a team in three weeks than Bush did in a whole year.

Well, 'A' would be worrisome, given all the publicity he's soaked up over what he's been "doing", and announcing and all. And 'B' would be worrisome given the amount of damage George Bush managed to do without ever, apparently, organizing his minions.

You guys need to get together and get your stories consistent. Either he's been doing something (which I think he has, and I'm not liking very much of it) or he hasn't.

No..I want clean public transportation. I want goods transported with trains instead of semi-trucks. I want alot of things. But if Obama is NOT going to reverse the tax cuts for the wealthy, NOT going to tax big oil, and give the middle class (who's that?)a "tax cut"where is he going to get revenue to enact all these half-hearted social welfare programs?

Oh, that's right--the Dems never intended to do any of it. And, now the excuses will flow like crude oil---"less oil profits", the "Wall St Bailout" (which THEY enacted!), "cant reverse tax cuts in a recession". What good excuses!

No, he broke his first campaign promise back in July when he voted to support Telecom immunity and FISA extensions.

He's a liar from waaaay back.

Surely it is premature to criticize the taste of
tonight's entre before the chef arrives at the restaurant.

This is all good and well--but could you give us an alternative first? I take public transportation al the time--I live in an econom- ically depressed urban area. It is NOT fun!
But it could be. I went to a WorkCamp in Europe in college...I rode the trains all ove the continent. I had a blast. I suppose there is some reason we cant do that...of course there is.

Surely it is premature to criticize the taste of
the fish entre before the chef arrives at the restaurant.

Yes. We do want $8 a gallon if seven of it is building green infrastructure. If gas hit $10 a gallon, we'd all be charging our EVs with solar garage roofs, while a few miserable trogs would be glumly pouring a fortune into their vintage Hummer.

Lorijen suggests: Surely it is premature to criticize the taste of the fish entre before the chef arrives at the restaurant.

When you've sat down and ordered the fish, then you notice the people back in the kitchen are wielding plungers rather than spatulas, and the smell coming from the kitchen is clearly that of sh!t burning on the grill, it might be a good idea to ask just what the f'ck is going on in there.

congressive suggests: Yes. We do want $8 a gallon if seven of it is building green infrastructure. If gas hit $10 a gallon, we'd all be charging our EVs with solar garage roofs, while a few miserable trogs would be glumly pouring a fortune into their vintage Hummer.

As usual, you've just wished the poor drastically MORE poor with this wish.

How do people barely scraping by now, manage $8 or $10 gasoline to get from homes to their jobs? From what frivolous expenditures do they take the extra?

New EV's and roof chargers? How do they afford those?

Given that the poor more often than not are driving older, less fuel efficient cars (all they can afford) and the rural poor in particular are likely to have to drive some considerable distances to their jobs, with no other transportation options available, you're wishing for their demise.

Susan,
Nuclear Power is the only thing that well give this country freedom from high oil prices. Even the Coal Industry has its problems. All other forms of energy are but a drop in the bucket of our energy problems.

well duh! he's not breaking a campaign promise he's making the better decision by changing his original plan based on different conditions. why would he raise the price of gas by taxing it as its going down helping consumers, businesses, the average joe, and the economy to not shrink. the conservative media would love that one don't you think? that'd be his title next election, the guy that made driving more expensive as it got cheap. good liberal journalism isn't as reactionary as the conservative brand, its supposed to be more analytical. instead of suggesting hes being deceitful and "breaking a campaign promise" to create the illusion of being tough journalists, why don't you ask readers to think about why he would do that. he probably will tax them but in a more politically sound fashion, that won't come out of our pocket like ending the subsidies, grants and land concessions from bush and making them pay for damage to the environment and their own security, when he's actually president.

Obama talked about a "windfall profits tax" when gasoline was up $5.00/gallon, higher in some places. With gasoline back down to 2004 levels, that tax is no longer necessary.

"What is wrong with you people.. you are worse than the hacks on the right! Just sit back, shut up, and wait to see what he does!!"

This what we were told to do during the Bush years and that man f-d up severely. I think it is important to speak out and always question authority, no matter who the president is. Abraham Lincoln himself could come back from the dead and I might still question his policies, it is our job as american citizens to do so. Sheep will always be sheep!!

Where are the "windfall profits" with $50/bbl oil and $1.75/gal gasoline? Even when oil company profits are high, the profit margins are comparable to those in other businesses and a high percentage of those profits are re-invested in exploration to find more oil to satisfy the voracious demand of "consumers". A consumption tax, with proceeds invested in development of alternative energy, would make much more sense.

Also, what is the definition of "Big Oil"? Much of the oil exploration around the world, especially domestic oil and gas exploration, is carried out by smaller "independent" companies? I believe that the term "Big Oil" has been used to demonize an industry that performs a vital function in today's world.

What it all boils down to is the dems and repub.all have the same agenda to drive this country to becoming the north american union and utilizing the new amero as new money not by our choice .Its apparent by the disappearing steel industry,manufacuturing jobs and if they have their way no BAIL-OUT to the big 3 will give the final break to the economy and the union a final blow.The Rich and the poor with no middle class.Reversing roles with china as the manufacturing king of the world .Be observant as the country eventually crumbles .It may not be immediate but its on the way .All the pieces have been put in place by Illumanati and Bilderburg groups .Heavan help us .

I find the comment that excessive profit taxes are supposed to return those profits from gouging to the people. The extra taxes do NOT go to those consumers who paid too much for fuel; they go to government. The first at that trough are our public servants. Well, maybe after our elected reps and their sponsors. It's just a stunt. It's just hollow symbolism with those in "public service" taking their cut of criminal proceedings. At least the Mafia takes a smaller cut.

Art comments: Even when oil company profits are high, the profit margins are comparable to those in other businesses...

That's a valuable point, Art, that's often not understood by many who want to see certain companies punished for whatever reasons they harbor resentment towards them.

In rather simplistic terms, if gasoline prices are high, as they were recently, and an oil company does, for instance, $500 billion worth of sales in a quarter with a measley 1% profit, then politicians and the media have a hay-day shouting about the enormous $5 billion the company took in an "unfair windfall".

Oil prices may be lower, as they are now, but if the company sells only $250 billion in product (same # of gallons pumped) for the quarter yet turns the exact same razor-thin 1% profit, nobody jumps up and down because that razor thin profit only looks half as big to the casual (easily duped) observer.

People need to look at the percentages involved, when they're trying to ascertain profitibality, and not the sheer number of dollars (which ain't what they used to be, anyway).

Come on. Obama hasn't even gotten in office and you are saying he backed off his promise? Do you have proof that he is doing that? None of us know what he is going to do when he does get in office. Give the man a chance before claiming he is another Bush or some ridiculousness like that.

You should be looking at the crimes still going in in the Bush Administration and taking him to task before you do Obama who has done nothing yet.

Jeez, give him a break. I didn't want him; I wanted Hillary because she is more liberal, not liberal enough but more liberal. But in the end, I voted for him, and I do think he will be far better than any of the alternatives. America is not, as the conservative claim, a center right country, but it is not more than slightly center left and only sometimes. Just swat the media and the GOP to keep his flank covered and urge him, as Paul Krugman says, to do more than Roosevelt and hope that's enough.

Meh, situations change, sometimes drastically. At least he's willing to adapt to current conditions.

Not his first. He back tracked on FISA, repealing tax cuts for the rich, renegotiating NAFTA, helping out the autos. Welcome to the old Clinton WH.

I read on a bussiness site somewhere that the oil and gas industry is starting to have problems with getting credit. Just as other companies are experenceing the credit crunch so is the oil and gas industry and they expect it to only get worse next year. Believe it or not.

SOooooo, Just who should we have elected? John McCrazy and the Witch from Wassila?
All this bitch'en as if there were real choices.
We went with the best we could get, maybe he isn't Jebus H. Christ. But I don't think he will go to war with Iran, etc.
How about we just try to help him do some good by holding his feet to the fire? Quit undermining the only hope for improvement we have and try supporting instead of tearing down. It seems we have bitched and moaned for so long we don't know how to stop.

Graycat suggests: How about we just try to help him do some good by holding his feet to the fire?

And how, exactly, do you propose we do that, if not by registering our discontent when we see him angling off in the wrong direction? And isn't that exactly what we're doing here?
Calling the attention of other supporters to the 'wrong course' we see being plotted, so that we, and they, may contact the people in charge and make intelligent arguments to them about the course they should be plotting, and why?

This is a concept that I actually support, because one of the things that's gone on the last several years is that there's been what amounts to a protracted urination contest with 'big oil', well, between 'big oil' and Congress, and not a lot of hard science and problem-solving which is the grist that the mill requires in order to get this country energy-independent, long-term. T. Boone Pickens is an oilman, who's kind of seen the light, here, and probably has pretty greasy fingers, but that's what you get for working around the stuff all day most likely, but he's also pretty savvy, and 'gets' that a lot of people are fairly sick n tired of the long-standing and questionable relationship that the oil industry at-large has had with dear old Washington, and is one of the few people in oil-biz to take steps in the direction of essentially bringing about what could be the beginning of the end for their longstanding and lucrative franchise.
Alternative energy is just that, the beginning of the end. When enough countries 'go green', and start doing things like electric cars and hydrogen and so forth, it's pretty much curtains for outfits like Exxon and Texaco, well, not completely, because likely there'll always be SOME demand for their products, but electric drive motors tend to last quite a while, and batteries aren't that hard to make. List off again the different ways you could generate some 'green' power, and you've got wave, wind, solar, geothermal, and then there's bio-fuels, and 'nookulur', people are interested in this stuff because they see it as a way to close the book on the
Standard Oil paradigm, as well as our reliance on shaky 3rd world countries with oil deposits in them, and economically liberating the American public at-large from the tender mercies of the mega-bankers in the middle east while we're at it, just sort of as a bonus, there. Energy independence for the United States also means more economical industrial production, which will benefit manufacturers including the Big 3 who are currently begging, hat-in-hand, at Washington's door, so, it's a win-win-win-win-win to get this country unhooked off the oil, and the greasy politics that went with it. In the short run, though, we'll still be using oil and gas. But, this last year alone saw people driving 90 billion FEWER miles in the US, and fuel prices are dropping, dropping while profits are likely oozing right through the fingers of speculators and so forth.
For our national future, we can't afford to have energy sources/providers that are about as fun to have around as a greased pig turned loose in the dining room. People like Hugo Chavez fully believe they have license to shake their fists at us, because they've got oil wells. Then there's the global usury match, hosted in Dubai this year, I think it is, directed against murkens and murkinsumurz for the most part, but anyone else out there willing to sign up for a credit card that drives a car, too, and it's all just very very 20th century, and this is the 21st, and people are asking questions like, 'I don't see any flying cars, WHERE are the flying cars'? and, 'dammit, where's my jet-pack'? And, rightly so.

Oil predicted to fall as far as $25/barrel. This is nuts! Forget the windfall tax, we need a tax that maintains oil at a minimum of $50, if not higher. Of course, the main goal of the proceeds should be to develop alternative energy sources, but in the short term, it can also be used to set the economy straight and reestablish a manufacturing base in this country. I sure hope they aren't afraid to lay some long-overdue taxes.

Obama's FIRST policy retreat? Where the hell have you been??

OK...I'm not surprised Obama has retreated from the wind-fall tax, nor will be surprised health care reform, lower tax for the middle class (what's left), and other promises fade away.

But we MUST maintain a public outcry against this! If Obama and those who influence him seem to think low oil prices are good for us, I would agree so long as they come up with a way to effectively curb our addition to the stuff.

Start with mandates requiring new vehicles to burn less oil...diesel subsidies for farmers and truckers (the fuel is almost 2 times the cost of regular gasoline now)..., new car taxes and fees based on mileage and weight. That way older, less efficient cars driven by less affluent can be phased out over time without crippling us and making this recession worse than it already is.

Loans to the big 3...so long as they gear up to make buses, locomotives, tug boats for barges on our waterways (as well as the fuel efficient cars!), NO MORE BEHEMOTHS to carry single passengers on congested freeways!!!! As oil prices go back up (and they will), we've got to be better prepared next time. Where can I get one of those bumper stickers..."Buy American...the job you save may be your own" ...?

I don't expect anyone that makes it to the white house to be another Huey Long, but reform IS needed. Mandates for competitive products ARE needed if CEO's don't want to look beyond the existing quarter. We've got to regain a foot-hold...start making stuff here in the US again...and not just cars!

Busby SEO Test states: believe Obama knows exactly what he's doing

Yes, but is it what he ought to be doing, and what he told us he'd be doing, if we elected him?

Hey Observer:
How's your strategy of posting anti-Obama rhetoric on this website working out for you?

And how, exactly, do you propose we do that, if not by registering our discontent when we see him angling off in the wrong direction? And isn't that exactly what we're doing here?

Ya figure this is getting the message across to Obama? Man, it's gonna be a long 8 years if the Right is just going to make noise down here in the catacombs. If you really want to get your message to Obama (and believe me, he's heard what you've got to say ad nauseum), then you'll want to post your ranting over at change.gov ... you can do that, you know. Unlike the previous administration, the next one will actually want to hear what the people have to say.

Stupidscript asks: Ya figure this is getting the message across to Obama?

Sure, script..., I have no doubt that Obama is hanging on every word Mojo users type in these discussions. [/sarcasm]

I notice you (intentionally??) left out the rest of the point I was making:
"Calling the attention of other supporters to the 'wrong course' we see being plotted, so that we, and they, may contact the people in charge and make intelligent arguments to them about the course they should be plotting, and why"

Since you want to get personal, attacking and belittling me, rather than discussing what's going on in the emerging Obama administration & whether it's what we think should be going on, I'll just ask you this:
Did you intentionally leave out the part of my message that nullifies, and makes ludicrous your personal attack, or are you just that inattentive?
Or uncomprehending?

I've got a decades-long history of writing, calling, and in recent years, emailing my elected officials over my key concerns, but I try to make sure other folks are thinking about what our public servants are doing by discussing such issues whenever and wherever possible, and giving them my opinion about it.

Call it "informed political participation".

You should try it some time, rather than attacking those who are trying to make a difference, and trying to get others to be involved and voice their concerns to their representatives.

As to your apparent presumption that all who question a Democrat must be from "the Right", it's obvious you've also been too inattentive to notice, or absorb the fact that the political landscape really isn't two dimensional, and it contains Greens, Socialists, Constitutionalists, Libertarians and others who don't fit into any of the general categories.

Have a nice day.

Quote of Bruno: "I'm glad it is no longer talked about. Taxing Windfall profits is not the solution.

Invest in clean energy and impose a higher tax on gasoline to pay for the research. The only for sure way to force people to think before driving is to have higher gas prices.

When the prices for gas are higher, more people will find it sensible to buy a car with better gas mileage. Now that gas is below $2.00 again, the rush for an economy car has mellowed out quite a bit. "
----------------------

I am really tired of this type of ignorance. Do you live in America? I do, but I really don't know about you. Here where I live, in a small town where the cost of a house is at least a little affordable, we have to drive to get to work because there is no public transportation between the towns in the county. That is, if you get a job close to home. And that job is still a commute.

Could carpool but no one that I work with lives near me at all. I drive a diesel Jetta. I don't drive in excess and do my 45 minute commute to and from work for a pitiful pay. You talk about increasing fuel prices so people will drive less. BUDDY, people are driving less. People cannot even afford to drive and yet have to spend most of their weekly income to do so because our country has a lousy public transportation system. If you want to increase fuel prices along with the already increased food prices, propery taxes and your gas & electric, then WHERE THE F is our Cost of Living Adjustment??????????

Been to Germany? They have a great system. You could live anywhere and get to anywhere by public transportation. Not here. How about government workers and all the other political scum take a paycut to the $20,000 to $35,000 people make a year. No reimbursement for anything.

I wonder if KDelphi realizes that trains don't run everywhere and those terrible trucks are necessary to move goods from ports or railheads to the public.

Yes, I do realize that, but that could just be an excuse not to do high speed rail. It would certainly help more than "Clean Coal" (I lived in a coal heated house with a sharecroper--there is no such animal).

So, if not ALL people can use trains and not ALL goods can be transported by train---we should do nothing..

Did I say that everyone should stop driving? Actually, animals for food production causes more pollution, but I digress..

We need revenue...if we do not get it from corporations destroying the planet, and making world record profits; nor from a progressive tax on the rich (ala Sanders); and we give the middle class a tax cut (bribe)(c'mon people, what will they do with that $1000--the same thing they did with the last one);and continue two "wars"---where in the hell are we going to get revenue, people?

Hey I have gotten "free speech" calls from WA/Credo for many years. I use them. And more. But, if only a few do it...at least they dont spy on you. I only have a land line.

It is priced about liek everyone else.

Observer: I'm not trying to insult you ad hominem, but rather to point out to you that coming on an Obama-licous website like MoJo and laying down your anti-Obama comments is no way to (a) reach the Obama administration with your criticisms nor (b) persuade others of your position. The way to contact the Obama administration is most easily found through change.gov, and if you intend to persuade supporters that Obama is setting up his Presidency the "wrong way" (I believe your words were, "the smell coming from the kitchen is clearly that of sh!t burning on the grill") and encourage them to join you in trying to get that message through to Obama (let's revisit your post from 12/03/08 at 12:42 PM, not to mention from 2:10 PM), then your approach is fatally flawed. Your posts have no sense of community beyond the all-bad-Obama-all-the-time attitude demonstrated by the Right, which is why I identified you as a member of that loose-knit group, rather than as a community-minded Democrat. (I am also aware that there are divisions within any of the political parties, so don't bother reminding me.)

I do think Obama and every Presidential candidate should some day be compelled to "make no campaign promise they cannot keep", but that rule is not in the playbook, yet, and it comes as no surprise to anyone that campaign promises are simply a very broad overview of the candidate's generalized position.

And don't forget that Obama clearly stated that his plan for taxing "excessive profits" from the oil industry was predicated on the price of gas being more than triple what it now is, and that he qualified his "promise" by saying (quoting from Bloomberg.com March 1, 2008) "The plan would target profit from the biggest oil companies by taxing each barrel of oil costing more than $80, according to a fact sheet on the proposal."

The point of fact is that Obama HAS NOT broken his campaign promise. This is a manufactured issue by people who can't be bothered to recall what that promise actually was (MoJo, I'm looking at you!), abetted by people like Observer who fan the flames, also without checking a little background.

I'm done.

Stupidscript writes: ...coming on an Obama-licous website like MoJo and laying down your anti-Obama comments is no way to ... persuade others of your position.

A: Is it necessarily 'Anti-Obama' to see as questionable the moves he's been making in organizing his people and priorities, and to say so to a group of, quite obviously, politically interested people? Or is it better characterized as "Anti-Policy"?

B: Judging from a sizable sampling of comments by other readers on this, and other Mojo threads, many users at this "Obama-licous website" already share my views on how he's shaping his administration.
It smells.

And as you well know, the "smell from the kitchen" comment was in response to an "ordering the fish in a restaurant" analogy another poster had used. Once again, my comment dragged out of it's full context.

As to what I'll do personally about trying to shape the direction of 'Change' we see from the new administration, and trying to assure it isn't the Bush-Lite course it appears to be setting it's sails for, I'll contact my House member, both my Senators and the President/President-Elect 'himself' (some designated staff member, actually, in each case.) directly through their respective offices (like always).

Change.gov appears to be a blog site set up more to sell Us their moves, rather than seek our input. And just because they set up such a site, permitting users to comment on their topics, I don't necessarily believe they'll take any heed of the comments posted there. Particularly the critical comments.

Just as I've never bought into the Bush administration's sales-pitch that typing my thoughts on Whitehouse.gov's interactive page, "Ask the White House"(Welcome to "Ask the White House". This online interactive forum, the first of its kind in politics, allows you to interact with Bush administration officials and friends of the White House.) will my comments them to reach the ears of anyone who's in charge of any sort of policy, regardless of how many fellow users voice their doubts on a given policy.

The only time I feel I'm getting through to a politician is when I email my representative in the State Legislature, who responds to personal emails personally, and who I've talked to directly at several of the 'citizen' foot races he and I have participated in, or when I encounter the County Sheriff on the streets of the County Seat, which is a small town.

Later, script.

Nice proof-read there, Mr. Observer...

...will my comments them to reach the ears of...
was meant to be "...will cause them (my comments) to reach the ears of...

I admire your awareness of the channels available to reach your elected representatives, Observer. Would that all people took such care to become knowledgeable about their representative government.

I take your comments in toto when forming my opinion about whether you are behaving in an anti-Obama manner, just like I do with MoJo's content, which has been overwhelmingly in favor of Obama's pending presidency, comments notwithstanding. If you are interested in how I formed the opinions related to your perspective, please go back and read your posts on this thread, and I expect you will be able to figure out how I came to the conclusions that I did.

Later.

Stop trying to hurt companies. You want punitive damages. You are talking about socialism. Welcome to the global world were oil is sold on the global market. I do not like high gas prices just like the rest of you. Maybe if you would understand corporations do not pay taxes, they collect them from you the consumer and send them to the goverment to cover all the social welfare programs. So think about. If you raised the taxes on cheese do you think the farmer is going to eat that, no. they are going to pass the cost on to you the consumer just like any other business. Big goverment is not the answer.

Wh are so many people trying to do Obama's work for him? He made the pledge to screw-over the oil companies and he should have to come up with ideas for doing that.

We have short memories, and too many of us do not see "the truck about to plow us to the ground (busy on the cell er somethin'). What was it that galvanized our anger and our attention just before we heard about the collapse of the economy? Wasn't it something about the sheer rise of gas and oil prices? Oh, yeah, and the unprecedented profits of Exxon/Mobile. Some rumbles about a few bad banks maybe, but our "economy was robust and growing!" though no one spoke of what it was growing into.
The timing of our latest list of wars and crises is so perfectly designed to concentrate wealth so underhandedly into so few hands, it just blows me away, especially when I see so many of our elected leaders pawning our future to buy a seat at the table of the past. In this old game, no matter who we elected, most of us lose. The money's gone--just gone! We been swindled! Slowly and discretely, Obama is aligning himself with the "Ole Boys Club". ... and I had hoped....

I bet there were some handsome dividends paid to a few major stock holders that are not counted as corporate profits. I also assume there were some gargantuan salaries clustered at the top (also not considered as profit), not to mention unfathomable tax write-offs, and other speculations and lobbying-- all which could hide profitable income.

So MoJo is strictly a "pro-Obama " site now, StupidScript? Oh, ok. Glad I found that out before I renewed my subscription...I always thought MoJo was about the People..

BYW--I qave up on contacting the Obama Team on the internet, after I argued there about the FISA Amendments

On the other hand, there are just GOBS of pro-Obama sites..what will you do to make yours unique? you can even find them among neo-con sites now!

Au contraire. The new administration needs to hear from us NOW. People, wake up. This is not the change we voted for. Once a thing is done, it is pretty well over.

I am tired of being told that our perceptions are wrong when the writing on the wall is quite clear. We have been conditioned to sublimate our concerns and it is time to stop.

Anyone down for not paying their taxes come April? Courageous enough to take the consequences? Astute enough to know what we want in concrete terms and willing enough to stand on it?

I know this sounds ridiculous, but it is simple insanity to continue to pay for a product (a government of, by, and for the people) that we are not receiving. They are two parts to this agreement. We support gov. -- gov. supports us. The latter hasn't happened for quite some time.

I have been reading several articles about the fact that windfall profits on the Oil Industry have been taken off by law-Congress would actually have to pass a new law or negate the existing one in order to once again tax the oil Industry. Once again the well trained congress has managed to take any and all controls off of the major corporations that have them in their pocket!

In hindsight, it's interesting to note that the general media's coverage of the 2008 election began to heavily favor a victory for Barack Obama when gas prices began plummeting from their all-time highs for the first time this year (in my area of Colorado, at least -- Denver, Boulder, Ft. Lupton -- from nearly $4.00/gallon to $2.30/gallon). So why then would it be blasphemy to suggest that the oil and gas industry began lowering domestic prices per gallon via-opec upon projecting a Barack Obama victory as to curb the President Elect's persecution of big oil, as he promised (allbeit in extremely vague terms)?

While keeping any and all leaps of logic in mind, an American president associated with low fuel prices in this day and age is a good president -- no questions asked from the general American public.

When it comes to these types of issues, especially before a president elect has taken office, its hard to take one side of an issue or the other. Politics is a dirty, dirty game -- with or without hope from a beautiful leader.

Mr. Independent informs us: Congress would actually have to pass a new law or negate the existing one in order to once again tax the oil Industry.

So..., at present, the oil industry is not taxed?
That's what your statement is saying?

Fact is, Exxon-Mobil alone will pay more in income taxes this year than the bottom 50% of individual taxpayers. It had already forked over more than $40 billion by the first of August.
mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/08/putting-exxons-income-taxes-in.html

Keep in mind, however, that all the taxes ANY industry pays to government ultimately comes from their customers. In this case, you and me.
So while you're dreaming of seeing Exxon-Mobil, BP-Amoco et. al being whacked with billions more in taxes, remember that it's going to come out of your pocket.

Corporations pay no taxes, when you get right down to it. They're simply forced into the roll of being tax collectors for the government, and collecting taxes from us, while supporting the internal bureaucracy necessary to do so, also, ultimately, at our expense.

Fuel taxes have always paid for roads. Now they must pay for climate damage, transit and greener infrastructure, as they do in Europe. With oil at low prices it's an ideal time to add fifty cents per gallon at least to the price and spend that money wisely to accelerate the shift off oil. If oil prices go back up the tax can go down. That fifty cents buys an awful lot of bus routes and car sharing systems and rail lines and smart thermostats and insulation and LED lighting. Plus take lots of working poor off tax rolls entirely, expand Medicare say to include dental, drugs, and catastrophic coverage, etc.. A better country paid for by gas guzzlers. That's how the Euros do it. Look at their exports: windmills, demand management technology, smart grid technology, solar concentrator towers, super fast trains, biomass tech and photovoltaics. Now look at US exports and tell me who's got the right energy and export policies.

The idea that there can be an oil "industry" any more seems to be a fantasy. Oilcos are and always have been branches of government and their job has been to keep fuels that are useful for war out of enemy hands. The rest is noise. Even when developed countries are using no oil they still need no one else to get it - both for climate and military reasons. If known reserves are burned the CO2 level in the atmosphere would reach 1400ppm according to UK Chief Scientist's office, and catastrophic climate change is expected at no more than 450. So 2/3 of what's already found must stay in the ground or expect climate wars, maybe even nuclear wars. Not all the victim countries (65 have banded together at the climate talks in Poland) are gentle peaceful places or will stay that way. The best way to deal with the US oil industry would be to nationalize it into a closed-end trust and squeeze it for every cent it can generate, redirecting all the profits to oil-free and coal-free infrastructure. Yeah it's socialist, who cares, so is bailing out big banks and auto companies. If you think governments don't control the oil industry you aren't paying much attention, most oilcos in the world are govt owned. The US would have more ability to adjust its policies if oil lobbyists and executives just ceased to exist or became US govt employees with no bribery budget. Keeping the oil from India and China is easy enough: give them the technology not to need any, or swap it for other technology they are already developing. Most of which is useless for military purposes: You can't have an electric fighter plane or battle tank. Do the math: batteries are too heavy. (but see below regarding Lincvolt).

Oil will end up in niche uses. For ordinary consumers, rock oil is as dead as whale oil. Look at the Paris auto show. Look at performance of modern diesels and electric drive vehicles - 100 mpg is a normal number. An electric 1959 LINCOLN CONTINENTAL called the "Lincvolt" gets 65 mpg and they expect 100 soon. (Yes ok this *IS* a main battle tank). Guys who tinker in garages can do this stuff - batteries have come a long way, so has brake energy recovery. US demand for oil is already way down and will go down faster as more transport is displaced by telework and efficient people and goods moving logistics - enabled by GPS and databases.

The tougher problem isn't oil but coal and Tar Sand and oil shale, which are burned in power plants or converted to "synthetic" oil. To use these you need clean gasification technology to get the carbon out and ship not C (carbon) or CH2 (oil) but CH4 (methane or "natural gas"). It's the only fossil fuel with a future, and plenty of it is coming online with LNG.

Farms? China runs their entire agricultural sector on methane. Germany mostly too.

Exxon/Mobil? Look at their reserves - and when they end. Analysts are complaining that the company doesn't seem to have any beyond 2016-7. That might be for a reason. They aren't fools. Maybe they're running it out like Enron or any other such Ponzi scheme.

"The stone age ended, but not for lack of stones" - Saudi oil minister

Estimates of the tipping point vary. However they are all between 400 and 500 ppm it seems. Way way below what would result if all known fossil reserves were burned, suggesting they can never be.

http://climateclock350.blogspot.com/2008/01/tipping-point-500-ppm.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2358045.ece

http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/06/must-read-bali-climate-declaration-by-scientists/

It's clear from these figures that oil and gas exploration has no future, drilling new wells has no future, and most existing fossil reserves must be left in the ground whatever the price. Unless someone has a replacement for science and scientists that is somehow more trustworthy. Oops that is called the GOP and wishing.

the reason for giving immediate feedback to the incoming team is that it can help set the tone for the next decisions.

Obama has created a web site: change.gov for the purpose of receiving feedback so we can help determine the policies by our opinions". We elected him on a "we can Change the downward spiriling or our country" Now is the best time to be heard.

You know, Im really sick of this conspiracy theory type articles about how Obama is duping us!!! Why don't you let the man be president for at least a month before you accuse him of duping us! I mean I'm sure he expects it from people, but I really find it sad that Mother Jones and the Nation are providing ways for their readers to turn against this administration already. This is concern trolling! Don't insinuate that someone has turned his back on his base unless you have a good reason!

Honestly, keep it up with the conspiracy theories and knee jerk reactions and I WILL cancel my subscription. I can't take 4 years of this crap.