Well, McBare, you are stepping in to defend GS again. My point about "windfall profits" is that if you receive them, it's a good thing. But if you aren't the receiver, it should be taxed. The phrase is a good example of liberal semantic infiltration (remember "trickle down"?) which carries the implication, without saying it directly, of being unearned or undeserved, and maybe evil.
The Woman wants to confiscate (tax) $40 billion of record oil company profits which she considers to be "windfall". She makes my point for me. What she doesn't disclose is that that cash is the source of stock dividends for investors and retirement benefits for retired and retiring employees.
The use of "windfall profits", as GS used it, is inappropriate and uneducated.
Actually the way GermanStar used it is the EXACT way that is is, and was used in 1980 to establish the Windfall Profit Tax: Unexpectedly high profits to the OIL Companies that were taxed.
Your point, as you try to move it to cover your incorrect definition [shares you don't own but pay taxes on, I believe you said] keeps wandering.
Regarding Trickle Down, I believe that was Bush1 that defined Reagan's Economic policies as "Trickle Down" and "Voodoo Economics". Humorously, the same economic philosophies that Bush2 tried over the past 7 years. And with the very same results. Shattering deficits, piled on National Debt, creeping inflation, building inflation and the main reason the campaign for Clinton in 1992 had a banner up that shouted "It's the Economy, Stupid".
Of the $9.5Trillion in National Debt that has been piled on throughout the History of the Republic, through 43 Presidents, Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2 have contributed 83%. And one would have to wonder if their economic policies had been so good, just how any debt whatsoever would have been incurred. Sound economic policy would not have incurred ANY debt.