The word "take" has over 100 possible meanings according to the dictionary. Not a single one of those describes what you are trying to say.Originally Posted by shagwAg3n
i think ur taking the meaning of "take" there a little too literally. i think what she's trying to say is, regulate the oil industry so they can't continue to have record setting profits yr after yr, then let the money "saved" go to this alternative fund. now of course, u are still taking away their profits in some sense, just not directly dipping into their banks and taking it
BTW, the oil industry is already regulated. Even using your example, how do you justify TAKING/using/diverting ANY funds from ANY company's EARNED profits INVOLUNTARILY to go to ANYTHING?
Why can't they continue to make profits? Why not? That is WHY they are in business, isn't it? Who is to say that Oil Companies are NOT ALLOWED to make profits? What's next? Mom and pop bakeries? Tire shops? What gives the gov't ANY right to regulate PROFITS???? Find anywhere in the constitution or any state law which gives the gov't the right to TAKE any PROFITS away from you for any reason. Find it. Then why should she be allowed to propose to TAKE any from oil companies?
Do you know what a profit margin is? What do you think is the typical profit margin for most major U.S. corporations? What do you think the typical profit margin for FINANCIAL institutions is? What was Exxon/Mobil's profit margin AFTER that $39 billion?
Bush is under a perpetual media microscope. He farts, it's on the 12, 3,4,5,6,10, and 11 o'clock news. Hillary proclaims she's going to TAKE money from a company to do what SHE thinks they should do with THEIR profits, and you barely get a blurb in the newspaper.Funny how that works.
The Socialist way of thinking is uber gay, period.
Reply With Quote