[wouldntbprudent]

Yes, it's a boneheaded idea, but what I read about Grassley was that he was attempting to "shame" the oil companies into contributing more to some "fuel oil for the poor" fund, not actually trying to take the profits.

[libertarianPA]

When you're a U.S. Senator, what's the difference between shaming, inferring, or outright stating? This man is trying to extort money earned honestly in order to pander to people who don't know the first thing about economics!

And that's really not the point anyway! This man has no right to do this in a "free" society. In Nazi Germany, this would be perfectly acceptable.

[Zeppo]

what I read about Grassley was that he was attempting to "shame" the oil companies into contributing more to some "fuel oil for the poor" fund, not actually trying to take the profits

Sounds like (stinks like) a typical organized crime 'protection' racket to me...

[CTOCS]

....contributing more to some "fuel oil for the poor" fund, not actually trying to take the profits.

Of course it is. As a small business owner, if the government demands that I contribute a portion of my profits to one of their pet projects, then that government is "taking" my profits.

[Phantom Lord]

Yes, it's a boneheaded idea, but what I read about Grassley was that he was attempting to "shame" the oil companies into contributing more to some "fuel oil for the poor" fund, not actually trying to take the profits.

Translation: Do so voluntarily now, or we will force you to do it later.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Yes, it's a boneheaded idea, but what I read about Grassley was that he was attempting to "shame" the oil companies into contributing more to some "fuel oil for the poor" fund, not actually trying to take the profits.

Assley would make a good DemRAT at this rate. Why can't he just move to shift a few billion in pork into LIHEAP instead?