|
|
|
|
|
| Senate Republicans block windfall taxes on Big Oil
Posted: 6/11/2008 4:19:11 AM | When you read what's going on in Washington it's easy to understand the mess our economy is in, from a war in Iraq which may have been promoted by half truths to the price of oil and now the refusal of our elected officials to pass a windfall profits tax that would have promoted expansion of refineries , R and D investment into alternate fuel sources and put some controls on the oil speculators that are driving the cost of fuels
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jun 11, 2:39 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Saved by Senate Republicans, big oil companies dodged an attempt Tuesday to slap them with a windfall profits tax and take away billions of dollars in tax breaks in response to the record gasoline prices that have the nation fuming.
GOP senators shoved aside the Democratic proposal, arguing that punishing Big Oil won't do a thing to lower the $4-a-gallon-price of gasoline that is sending economic waves across the country. High prices at the pump are threatening everything from summer vacations to Meals on Wheels deliveries to the elderly.
The Democratic energy package would have imposed a 25 percent tax on any "unreasonable" profits of the five largest U.S. oil companies, which together made $36 billion during the first three months of the year. It also would have given the government more power to address oil market speculation, opened the way for antitrust actions against countries belonging to the OPEC oil cartel, and made energy price gouging a federal crime.
"Americans are furious about what's going on," declared Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. He said they want Congress to do something about oil company profits and the "orgy of speculation" on oil markets.
But Republican leaders said the Democrats' plan would do harm rather than good — and they kept the legislation from being brought up for debate and amendments.
On world markets, oil prices retreated a bit Tuesday but remained above $131 a barrel. Gasoline prices edged even higher to a nationwide record average of $4.04 a gallon.
At the Capitol, Democratic leaders needed 60 votes and they got only 51 senators' support, including seven Republicans who bucked their party leaders. Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, a state tied closely to the oil industry, was the only Democrat opposing the bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid voted in favor of the measure, but for procedural reasons changed his vote to "no" so that he could bring it up again.
"We are hurting as a country. We're hurting individually as Americans ... and the other side says, `Do nothing. Don't even debate the issue,'" complained Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
"Average citizens are scratching their heads and saying, what's wrong with Washington," said Schumer.
GOP opponents argued that little was to be gained by imposing new taxes on the five U.S. oil giants: Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., Shell Oil Co., BP America Inc. and ConocoPhillips Co.
While these companies may be huge, they don't set world oil prices and raising their taxes would discourage domestic oil production, the Republicans said of the Democrats' plan.
"In the middle of what some are calling the biggest energy shock in a generation ... they proposed as a solution, of all things, a windfall profits tax," Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky chided the Democrats. He called their proposal "a gimmick" that would not lower gasoline prices and only hold back domestic oil production.
"The American people are clamoring for relief at the pump," agreed Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., but "they will get exactly what they don't want" under the Democrats' plan — higher prices and an increase in oil imports.
The bill's supporters argued that their proposal was different from the windfall profits taxes of the early 1980s that thwarted domestic production and led to a rise in imports. The oil companies could avoid the tax by using their "windfall" to push alternative energy programs or refinery expansions, they said.
Shortly after the oil tax vote, Republicans blocked a second proposal that would extend tax breaks that have either expired or are scheduled to end this year for wind, solar and other alternative energy development, and for the promotion of energy efficiency and conservation. Again Democrats couldn't get the 60 votes to overcome a GOP filibuster.
Neither Republican presidential candidate John McCain nor his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, were in Washington to cast votes on the energy issue on Tuesday.
Obama, in a statement, said Republicans had "turned a blind eye to the plight of America's working families" by refusing to take up the energy legislation. Obama has supported additional taxes on the oil companies. McCain is opposed to such taxes and has proposed across-the-aboard tax reductions for industry as a way to help the economy.
Election-year politics hung over the debate. Democrats know their energy package has no chance of becoming law. Even it were to overcome a Senate GOP filibuster — a longshot at best — and the House acted, President Bush has made clear he would veto it.
But there was nothing to lose by taking on Big Oil when people are paying $60 to $100 to fill up their gas tanks.
The oil companies have been frequent targets of Congress. Twice this year, top executives of the largest U.S. oil producers have been brought before congressional committees to explain their huge profits. And each time the executives urged lawmakers to resist punitive tax measures, blaming high costs on global supply and demand.
In addition to the proposed windfall profits tax, the Democrats' bill also would have rescinded tax breaks that are expected to save the oil companies $17 billion over the next 10 years. The money would have been used to provide tax incentives for producers of wind, solar and other alternative energy sources as well as for energy conservation.
In an attempt to dampen oil market speculation, the legislation would require traders to put up more collateral in the energy futures markets and would provide authority to regulate U.S.-based trading in foreign markets. And it would make oil and gas price gouging a federal crime, with stiff penalties of up to $5 million during a presidentially declared energy emergency.
After Tuesday's defeat, Democrats did not rule out pushing the issue again.
"This was politics at its worst," complained Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. "This was a refusal to debate the biggest problem confronting the American people. ... That takes nerve."
Complaining about the economy is not enough it's time to send a clear message to those public servants now in office that we want change, not change just for the sake of change but change that will have a positive effect on our countries future and the future of generations of Americans to come
| |
|
| Senate Republicans block windfall taxes on Big Oil
Posted: 6/11/2008 5:10:28 AM | | The above is written as if the Democrat sponsored legislation to increase taxes would have helped the public and the Republicans' wronged the public in some way by blocking it. Currently in the United States, depending on what state you live, the taxes on gasoline are 4 to 6 times more than the entire profit made by the oil companies on that gasoline. What makes any of you think that even higher taxes on oil companies would result in something for the common Joe on the street? Companies do not pay taxes; they pass them on to the public. I don’t fear Arab terrorists. What sends shivers of terror down my spine is hearing my own federal government tell me that they are here to help me. | |
|
| Senate Republicans block windfall taxes on Big Oil
Posted: 6/11/2008 5:10:57 AM | http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzIwMTQzNDIzMzRlY2RjMzk2MTBjMDc5MTM3N2MwM2I=
But here’s an eye opener. Recent polling data from Gallup show the percentage of voters blaming oil companies for skyrocketing gasoline prices has dropped from 34 percent to 20 percent over the past year. At the same time, support for more drilling in U.S. coastal and wilderness areas has increased to 57 percent from 41 percent.
Voters Say ‘Drill’
Neither candidate gets it.
By Larry Kudlow
The recent spike in oil prices and unemployment is dramatically changing this presidential campaign — virtually overnight. The near $20 jump in oil to $140 a barrel, the unexpected half-point increase in the jobless rate to 5.5 percent (the biggest monthly increase in 20 years), and the resulting 400-point plunge in stocks has created a new campaign issue right before our eyes.
Public worry number one is now oil, jobs, and the economy, with the inflationary woes of the U.S. dollar right underneath. The candidate who can connect with these issues will win in November. But so far neither Obama nor McCain are dealing with the new political reality.
In fact, it’s all about oil right now. The price has doubled over the past year while the economy has slumped.
But here’s an eye opener. Recent polling data from Gallup show the percentage of voters blaming oil companies for skyrocketing gasoline prices has dropped from 34 percent to 20 percent over the past year. At the same time, support for more drilling in U.S. coastal and wilderness areas has increased to 57 percent from 41 percent.
And the candidates remain blind to these shifts.
Obama continues to lambaste oil companies while congressional Democrats push for cap-and-trade. They’re missing the point, big time. The public wants more energy and more fuel to cut high prices and spur economic growth. But the costly cap-and-trade plan would produce less fuel and less growth. It would only raise gas pump prices while mounting a Gosplan-type taxing, spending, and regulating program that would be the moral equivalent of Hillarycare on nationalized medicine.
Sen. McCain has an opening here. Yet he, like Obama, would have voted for cap-and-trade, which went down to defeat in last week’s Senate vote. And while Mr. McCain favors some off-shore production and has been strong on nuclear development, he is against drilling in ANWR Alaska.
Then there’s the oil nobody is talking about. The Bakken fields beneath North Dakota, Montana, and Canada hold an estimated 400 billion barrels of oil. In comparison, Saudi Arabia’s biggest field, Gahawar, has an estimated 55 billion barrels, while ANWR has an estimated 10.4 billion barrels.
Hat tip to Mark Perry at the Carpe Diem blog site for these figures. Perry also is reporting a Bureau of Land Management study showing 279 million acres under federal management where oil and gas could potentially be extracted. But more than half of this is totally off limits. Off-shore, where another 86 billion barrels lie in wait, is also restricted. Then there’s liquefied natural gas, oil shale, and the various coal-to-liquid carbon-capture and sequestration technologies that would be priced out of the market by cap-and-trade.
The U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal, but we can’t produce. We’re still the world’s third-largest oil producer, but we could be the Saudi Arabia of oil if our companies were free to drill. Oil CEOs like Rex Tillerson of ExxonMobil and David O’Reilly of Chevron keep saying this. But politicians aren’t heeding their message.
Israeli saber-rattling against Iran could have accounted for some of last week’s huge oil spike. And the unemployment story may not be as bad as the May jobs report suggests. An unexpected inflow of teenagers probably bloated the jobless figure by a couple tenths of 1 percent. And economist Jerry Bowyer points out that an unprecedented hike in the minimum wage may be derailing students looking for summer work. However, in a sign of future job improvement, the civilian labor force grew by nearly 600,000, meaning that more people looking for work could signal recovery. Weekly jobless claims are near 350,000, not the 500,000 of past recessions. Overall, at 5.5 percent, unemployment continues to be historically low.
But the economy is still in a slump, not a boom. And the fact remains that Americans are very worried about the economic outlook. This could be a recession election. And right now voter economic anxieties are all about oil, even more than the sub-prime housing credit problem.
Sen. McCain has a great pro-growth plan to slash corporate tax rates, a move that would be a strong tonic for jobs and wages. But he must bolster that plan with a new emphasis on deregulated energy markets that can produce a total portfolio of conventional and non-conventional energy, including major new drilling. He should couple that with a strong-dollar message to curb both energy and non-energy inflation, which is shrinking consumer paychecks and damaging corporate profits.
More oil, more jobs, better wages, and low inflation. That’s a winning GOP message this fall. But what if Sen. Obama gets there first? It’s unlikely, but not out of the question. Either way, voters will move to the candidate who connects with their worries. Right now those worries are up for grabs | |
|
| Senate Republicans block windfall taxes on Big Oil
Posted: 6/11/2008 6:31:40 AM | I think "most" people don't actually understand how capitalism works. By restricting potential profit by additional taxation, you create a diminished value / return on investment. The result will not be lower prices; it will be an absence of investors, which means more of an economic slowdown. They think "Big Oil" is some evil alien creature from another planet and don't realize that "Big Oil" is actually owned by millions of investors, of which through 401K or other retirement plans they are likely one of... "Big Oil" is a business, and like any other business, they exist for profit, not for humanitarian purposes.
The politicians that do "get it" simply do the wrong thing for the appearance that they somehow went after the offending parties on our behalf and we are better off for it when clearly we are not. Government went after trade, we lost millions of jobs, they went after medicine, we have to pay $27.00 for an aspirin in the hospital, they went after education and we have high school graduates that can barely read and write, know nothing of history, geography, and *gasp* economics ... the list of government failures is endless, yet for some reason politicians can always count on finding enough people lacking in common sense to back their hair brained ideas.
 | |
|
| Senate Republicans block windfall taxes on Big Oil
Posted: 6/11/2008 6:43:05 AM |
The above is written as if the Democrat sponsored legislation to increase taxes would have helped the public and the Republicans' wronged the public in some way by blocking it. Currently in the United States, depending on what state you live, the taxes on gasoline are 4 to 6 times more than the entire profit made by the oil companies on that gasoline. What makes any of you think that even higher taxes on oil companies would result in something for the common Joe on the street? Companies do not pay taxes; they pass them on to the public. I don’t fear Arab terrorists. What sends shivers of terror down my spine is hearing my own federal government tell me that they are here to help me.
What scares me is when people can not see past party lines and read and interpret the way they want to, it kind of reminds me of the way we ended up in Iraq fighting a war we should not be involved in
The proposed windfall tax had some very positive points in it
1-The Democratic energy package would have imposed a 25 percent tax on any "unreasonable" profits of the five largest U.S. oil companies, which together made $36 billion during the first three months of the year.
2-It also would have given the government more power to address oil market speculation, opened the way for antitrust actions against countries belonging to the OPEC oil cartel, and made energy price gouging a federal crime.
3--In addition to the proposed windfall profits tax, the Democrats' bill also would have rescinded tax breaks that are expected to save the oil companies $17 billion over the next 10 years. The money would have been used to provide tax incentives for producers of wind, solar and other alternative energy sources as well as for energy conservation.
We don’t need to be democrats, republicans and independent’s right now we need to be Americans concerned about the future of our country and our children, when our country is in trouble every one including big business needs to help in the bail out, 36 billion in profits made in the first three months of the year does not seem to indicate that the oil companies are suffering any in the present economic conditions the rest of us are dealing with
The oil companies would have the option of using that 25% to build refineries or to invest in alternate energy.
We make government sound like a bad word when the reality of it is that we are the government, We elect the public servants that represent us and right now we are in a mess and we are responsible for letting our country get in this shape and we are also responsible to see to it that we recover | |
|
| |
| Senate Republicans block windfall taxes on Big Oil
Posted: 6/11/2008 7:27:59 AM | These steps could lower oil prices, but nobody'll take them
Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: June 09, 2008 07 54 PM
WASHINGTON — As gasoline prices soar to new records, America's president — and the two men who hope to succeed him — are offering only partial or long-term solutions and ignoring three steps that many experts say could bring some relief now.
Independent experts, however, said that government could take at least three other steps that could force oil and gasoline prices down immediately. Neither Bush nor McCain nor Obama endorse any of them.
Perhaps the quickest action, the experts said, would be ordering curbs on financial speculation. Financial industry heavyweights have acknowledged in recent testimony before Congress that such speculation is driving oil prices higher.
Pension funds, endowments and other big institutional investors are pumping big money into index funds linked to commodities, including oil, driving up demand — and prices. The popular Goldman Sachs Commodities Index attracted $260 billion in investment last year, compared to $13 billion five years earlier.
Complicating any effort to harness that, about 30 percent of the trading in crude oil is done in "dark areas" — markets in London and Dubai — that aren't regulated by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
President Bush could order the CFTC to regulate U.S. investments in those markets with a snap of his fingers, said Michael Greenberger, a law professor at the University of Maryland and a former director of trading for the CFTC.
"Essentially this could be ended this afternoon if the Bush administration had the stomach to do it," he said. "Those abdications of responsibility and allowing these exchanges to trade in 'dark' markets ... provides an environment for speculators to thrive."
The CFTC is investigating the link between speculation and oil prices but hasn't scheduled any action.
A second partial solution would be to boost the supply of oil available on the market by releasing as much as 1 million barrels a day of oil now held in the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That step is being pushed by, among others, the Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank run by several former Clinton administration officials.
Do that for 90 days — through the summer driving season when consumer demand for gasoline is highest — and the reserve would lose less than 15 percent of the oil held in case of national emergency.
"Put that on the market, and the price of oil will fall," said Daniel J. Weiss, a senior fellow at the center.
It's not entirely clear that U.S. refineries could handle all that extra oil, but it would signal to traders of oil contracts that the U.S. market is adequately supplied.
Finally, the Federal Reserve could act to boost the weak dollar, which has led oil producers to demand higher prices for oil, because oil generally is traded in dollars. Oil producers want higher prices to offset the cost of converting dollars into euros and other currencies that have grown stronger against the dollar.
The best way to bolster a currency is to boost interest rates, but the Federal Reserve has been reluctant to do that with America teetering on the brink of recession. The central bank in Europe, where growth is more robust, is poised to raise rates, however. That could weaken the dollar further, and drive oil prices even higher.
Senate Democrats on Tuesday will try to muster 60 votes to allow a vote on legislation that could significantly affect the oil industry and oil prices. The legislation would, among other things, instruct CFTC regulators to require investors to plunk down more of their own money if they want to speculate in oil markets.
Instead, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's chief economic adviser, told McClatchy that a "holiday from the 18.4 cent per gallon federal gasoline tax has lowered prices every time it's been tried "and it is felt all through the economy."
The idea of a gas-tax holiday has little traction in the Democratic Congress, however, and many economists oppose it as likely to spur consumption and make things worse. | |
|
| Senate Republicans block windfall taxes on Big Oil
Posted: 6/11/2008 12:48:56 PM | 1-The Democratic energy package would have imposed a 25 percent tax on any "unreasonable" profits of the five largest U.S. oil companies, which together made $36 billion during the first three months of the year.
My question is who decides how much profit is too much and on what grounds would they base this on? | |
|
| Senate Republicans block windfall taxes on Big Oil
Posted: 6/11/2008 1:26:04 PM |
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Crude oil prices jumped nearly $7 on Wednesday after a government report showed stockpiles in the United States fell sharply for the fourth week in a row due to flagging imports, intensifying worries of a worsening global crunch.
House Subcommittee Rejects Plan to Open U.S. Waters to More Oil Exploration
WASHINGTON — A House subcommittee has rejected a Republican-led effort to open up more U.S. coastal waters to oil exploration.
Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., spearheaded the effort. His proposal would open up U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles off shore for drilling. The first 50 miles off shore would be left alone.
But the plan failed Wednesday on a 9-6, party-line vote in a House appropriations subcommittee, which was considering the proposal as part of an Interior Department spending package.
With record oil prices and gas prices projected to hover around the $4 mark for the rest of the summer, Republicans have ratcheted up their efforts to open up oil exploration along U.S. coastline. But the long-sought change has so far been unsuccessful.
Most offshore oil production and exploration has been banned since a federal law passed in 1981.
For his part, Peterson said: "There is no valid reason for Congress to keep the country from energy resources it needs."
According to Peterson's office, the U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found along the U.S. outer continental shelf, the area affected by the ban.
Peterson is not alone in his desire to open up the shelf. An effort to unlock the resources has been underway in Congress in recent years, and several interest groups are backing the effort, too.
"Tapping America's huge reserve of deep ocean energy helps us fight terrorism and increases our domestic energy supply, which will help put downward pressure on gasoline prices," Greg Schnacke, President of Americans for American Energy, said in a news release, adding: "With Americans suffering at the gas pump and with higher energy bills, it's a no-brainer that the OCS should be developed."
But the proposal has faced staunch opposition from environmental groups from states where the shorelines are under consideration for drilling, like Florida.
Sierra Club lands program director Athan Manuel told a House committee Wednesday that drilling has been unsuccessful in driving costs down.
"The disappointing part about some of the energy policies being promoted (is) that it calls for more drilling when drilling really is the problem. And all we've got to show for pretty aggressive (domestic) drilling for the last 35 years is, again, $4 for a gallon of gas," Manuel said, adding "since the first Arab oil shock in the 1970s, the U.S. has produced almost 90 billion barrels of oil since then, so we've tried drilling our way out of the problem and it just hasn't worked."
Environment Florida spokeswoman Holly Binns told the Media General news group that offshore drilling has no immediate impact on prices.
"It would take anywhere from seven to 10 years to bring those resources to shore — to have any measurable impact on supply,” Binns said, advocating renewable energy sources.
Democrats are holding their own series of events on Capitol Hill Wednesday to focus attention on global warming and energy independence, but drilling is not on the agenda. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Tuesday ongoing calls for more drilling "is the Johnny One-Note of the Republican Party."
Not surprisingly, the issue has spilled into the ream of presidential politics as well.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., criticized Democrats, including fellow Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., over recent comments Obama made regarding gas prices.
The comments that McConnell referred to were given during an interview with CNBC. Discussing rising gasoline prices, Obama said: "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing.
Obama also said that "if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly U.S. automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out of this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now.
McConnell, honing in on Obama's referral to "gradual" price increases, said Obama's remarks are evidence that Obama believes "rising gas prices aren't the problem. The problem, he suggested, is that they've gone up too fast. He said he would prefer a gradual adjustment."
He continued: "Whether it's shutting down domestic exploration in large areas both onshore and offshore, instituting a moratorium on oil shale development, increasing the gas tax, or refusing to pursue coal to liquids, Democrats long ago implemented a 'gradual adjustment' on gas prices that's reflected today in the $4.05 Americans are paying for a gallon of gas."
"We are kidding ourselves if we think we can drill our way out of these problems," House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., said during the bill mark-up session | |
|
| Senate Republicans block windfall taxes on Big Oil
Posted: 6/11/2008 1:36:09 PM | nefarious101, two bits of information in your article:
1. It would take 7-10 years to come on line to measurably affect supply
2. It would not change prices.
So that puts domestic and coastal drilling off the table as a response to our immediate concerns, I'd say, if it is true. | |
|
| Senate Republicans block windfall taxes on Big Oil
Posted: 6/11/2008 1:42:14 PM |
1. It would take 7-10 years to come on line to measurably affect supply
Should have done it seven years ago then...same people don't want it now were standing in the way then.
2. It would not change prices.
Who says that? The same people that told us not to drill anywhere or build nuclear plants or refineries. Not body knows that for sure...it's just an educated guess...one of many different educated guesses. | |
|
| Senate Republicans block windfall taxes on Big Oil
Posted: 6/11/2008 2:48:41 PM |
We make government sound like a bad word when the reality of it is that we are the government, We elect the public servants that represent us and right now we are in a mess and we are responsible for letting our country get in this shape and we are also responsible to see to it that we recover
Unfortunately, this is not a true statement. I wish it were. The fact is that in order to get to the point where a politician is voted on by the public in a federal election, the politician must embrace special interests and party leaders. The news media also is very biased and they have more to do with the selection process than the people because they control what the public sees and hears and what the public does not see and hear. Those with the best ideas are overwhelmed by those with the most advertising dollars and the right connections. The vast majority of the public determines things by watching 30 second to one minute sound bites and typically, they still vote along with the party they associate themselves to be part. Please note how none of the Presidential candidates accepted federal funds because when they agree to that money, they much give up the really big bucks provided by special interests.
The politicians that do "get it" simply do the wrong thing for the appearance that they somehow went after the offending parties on our behalf and we are better off for it when clearly we are not. Government went after trade, we lost millions of jobs, they went after medicine, we have to pay $27.00 for an aspirin in the hospital, they went after education and we have high school graduates that can barely read and write, know nothing of history, geography, and *gasp* economics ... the list of government failures is endless, yet for some reason politicians can always count on finding enough people lacking in common sense to back their hair brained ideas.
Wow, you sir are one of the very few who do “get it.” All I can say is... Tim Pommell for President!
The federal government is at its best when it is small and very limited in scope. It's long past the point of out-of-control and it is killing America and not helping at all.
Oh, and OP, I am an independent and I do not support the war in Iraq. | |
|
| Senate Republicans block windfall taxes on Big Oil
Posted: 6/12/2008 12:16:27 AM | | It's good to see that the Republicans, at least, have the integrity to resist Chavez-style socialism and mob politics. Punishing a small number of companies for turning a profit makes no sense at all, and would only result in decreased investment, lost jobs and damaged to the oil industry, resulting in a reduced supply of oil and higher gas prices. Companies should be encouraged to be profitable, not vilified and robbed every time they achieve any sort of success. | |
|
| Senate Republicans block windfall taxes on Big Oil
Posted: 6/12/2008 5:18:48 AM |
We make government sound like a bad word when the reality of it is that we are the government, We elect the public servants that represent us and right now we are in a mess and we are responsible for letting our country get in this shape and we are also responsible to see to it that we recover
Unfortunately, this is not a true statement. I wish it were. The fact is that in order to get to the point where a politician is voted on by the public in a federal election, the politician must embrace special interests and party leaders. The news media also is very biased and they have more to do with the selection process than the people because they control what the public sees and hears and what the public does not see and hear. Those with the best ideas are overwhelmed by those with the most advertising dollars and the right connections. The vast majority of the public determines things by watching 30 second to one minute sound bites and typically, they still vote along with the party they associate themselves to be part. Please note how none of the Presidential candidates accepted federal funds because when they agree to that money, they much give up the really big bucks provided by special interests.
We are the government, if not it is only because we have allowed those elected public servants to take away our rights , wishing it were true will not change what is. We are living in a time when communication is at our finger tips, we do not have to vote for either parties candidate. We can organize and run an independent candidate or we can influence the way our public servants vote by becoming more involved
We definitely have to examine the way our election process works today and make some changes in campaign financing to have candidates that are representative of the people that elect them
It's good to see that the Republicans, at least, have the integrity to resist Chavez-style socialism and mob politics. Punishing a small number of companies for turning a profit makes no sense at all, and would only result in decreased investment, lost jobs and damaged to the oil industry, resulting in a reduced supply of oil and higher gas prices. Companies should be encouraged to be profitable, not vilified and robbed every time they achieve any sort of success.
Chavez is he the one from Venezuela who sold heating oil at reduced prices to those who could not afford to heat their homes here in America? That Chaves is a bad guy isn’t he? Imagine the nerve
Integrity is the label you put apply to public servants who have brought our country to the brink of depression, who have lead us into a war with no end. 36 billion in the first 3 months of the year ? The windfall profits tax could be used by the oil companies to build new refineries here in America which would mean the availability of more fuel at a lower price per gallon, jobs for American workers both in the construction of the refineries and in operating and maintaining the facilities, Capital can be made in two ways one is by increasing the volume available and the other by increasing the price per unit, the oil companies have choosen price per until which in the end will kill the goose that laid the golden egg
We have to move away from the use of fossil fuels the Windfall profits taxes could be used by the oil companies for R and D.
I think the problem is we do not have enough government in our country and that the government should start to expand , start out by hiring the best technology experts in the country to set up and research alternative fuels, maybe get involved in the automotive industry another business like the oil companies who did not look to the future and continued using antiquated equipment rather then reinvesting some of their profits in retooling and improving their product quality. When America goes into the coming depression every one will suffer including the oil companies so maybe rather then contribute to the economic mess we are in they would be better off putting some of those taxes into areas that would promote future growth and continued profitability
It seems a lot of Americans want to make this about democrats and republicans and not about the problems facing “we the people" | |
|
| Senate Republicans block windfall taxes on Big Oil
Posted: 6/12/2008 3:36:26 PM | > The windfall profits tax could be used by the oil companies to build new refineries here
> in America which would mean the availability of more fuel at a lower price per gallon
The problem at this point is not a shortage of gasoline or refineries. In fact, the share prices of companies exclusively in that biz, such as Tesoro and Valero are at multi-month lows because their profit margins are getting squeezed from both ends: the high price of crude (their input raw material) and relatively weak demand from consumers in a weak economy keeping prices of what they produce low.
Yes, I know gasoline doesn't seem like it's low in price to too many people, but the retail market is saturated with stations (they're literally everywhere you look) and it's a very competitive biz, esp. with websites allowing people to comparison shop online for the best price. Thus it's not like the bottled water or iPhone biz, where demand is high relative to supply and margins are high. | |
|
| Senate Republicans block windfall taxes on Big Oil
Posted: 6/12/2008 4:34:49 PM | Refineries are operating at 80-85%....... since 1975 there has been ONE permit request. The oil companies are given a faster depreciation schedule for improvements to exsisting plants.
China is not drilling in the Gulf of Mexico........
Oil Companies are sitting on 10,000 federal permits.......
Private lands are not in this count.
How can anyone defend companies with half a TRILLION dollars in profits? After giving HUGE pay and Bonus to officers....
Count to a Trillion next time you fill up.
Drilling on federal lands has steadily increased during this period, from 3,800 five years ago to nearly 7,600 in 2007.
In the last four years, the Bureau of Land Management has issued nearly 29,000 permits to drill on public land. Yet during that same period, less than 19,000 wells were actually drilled.
the Interior report shows 40 percent of oil reserves on federal lands are currently open to leasing.
See
Democrats Rejects to Open U.S. Waters for Oil Exploration
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts10160933.aspx
post 21. has the links | |
|
timj82
|
Joined: 5/19/2008
Msg: 17 | |
| |
| Senate Republicans block windfall taxes on Big Oil
Posted: 6/12/2008 4:59:57 PM | | Dude you just don't get it do you.........any energy produced in this country......that money stays here or is bought by another country...........that means trillions of dollars we keep here for our economy....duhhhhhhhhh!........you guys are so dumb....yes it would lower prices because it come from us not them......Duhhhhhhhhhh! God help us! when did people lose common sense! | |
|
| Senate Republicans block windfall taxes on Big Oil
Posted: 6/12/2008 5:40:26 PM |
Dude you just don't get it do you.........any energy produced in this country......that money stays here or is bought by another country...........that means trillions of dollars we keep here for our economy....duhhhhhhhhh!........you guys are so dumb....yes it would lower prices because it come from us not them......Duhhhhhhhhhh! God help us! when did people lose common sense!
Okay dude since you are probably by your own admission so much smarter then I am how about widening my horizons by telling me what the oil companies are doing with those trillions of dollars they are keeping in our country, I will bet they are using it to pay down the national debt or maybe reinvesting in our infrastructure, oh I know they are busy researching new technology to replace oil as a primary fuel source | |
|
| Senate Republicans block windfall taxes on Big Oil
Posted: 6/12/2008 6:56:33 PM |
Yes, I know gasoline doesn't seem like it's low in price to too many people, but the retail market is saturated with stations (they're literally everywhere you look)
Oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp. plans to sell its company-owned gas stations, saying they aren't profitable enough even with gasoline selling at $4 per gallon.
The nation's largest oil company says it will sell more than 2,000 stations over the next few years.
"The fuels marketing sector is a very challenging market," ExxonMobil spokesperson Prem Nair said.
That might start to take care of all those gas stations everywhere we look.
As for the windfall profit tax I think it's a slippery slope. Much like how the RICO law was born with the best of intentions it now invades in areas of peoples' lives that was never intended.
The windfall profit tax could very easily morph into the government taking an additional share of your lottery winnings. Or the government taking their fair share of your million dollar idea that you just invented. The windfall profit tax should be carefully considered because of the future implications it might offer. | |
|
| Senate Republicans block windfall taxes on Big Oil
Posted: 6/12/2008 7:28:05 PM | I guess it is to much take back the Tax incentives from the 20005 energy bill???
Like Paying NO Royality on much of the Alaska Oil?
Or $1.6 billion taxpayers gave for drilling in the Gulf?
How is it in my best interest to GIVE our oil to Big Oil ....
Huge Corp Profits, $4 gas? | |
|
| Senate Republicans block windfall taxes on Big Oil
Posted: 6/12/2008 9:21:32 PM | I clipped the following piece when I ran across it a couple of years ago for use in discussions like these. It illustrates quite clearly why going after the few remaining untapped oil reserves is NOT the answer:
The Doubling Effect
…….Evan Nering
When I discussed the exponential function in the first-semester calculus classes I taught, I had no trouble finding real-world examples. The best example of an exponential function is nonrenewable natural resources. Suppose, I said to my students, we have a supply of a resource, say oil, which at our current rate of use will last 100 years. But suppose that rate grows by 5 percent each year. How long would it last in this case? About 36 years.
Perhaps we underestimated our supply of oil. Suppose we have a 1000 year supply, if used at a constant rate. At the annual 5 percent growth rate how long will it last? 79 years.
Maybe we’re really lucky and we find enough oil to last 10,000 years, at a constant rate of use. How much time does that expanded supply buy us, if our use grows at 5 percent? 124 years – not 100 times as long, but only about 3.5 times.
The real-world moral of this simple mathematics lesson is that we will not solve our need for oil by expanding supplies. If use is allowed to grow steadily, doubling the supply does not buy us as much time as reducing the growth rate of consumption by half.
Doubling the size of the oil reserve will add only 12 years to the life expectancy of the supply, if we continue to use oil at the same expanding rate. But halving the rate of growth of consumption will almost double the life expectancy of the oil supply, no matter how much oil there turns out to be.
Mathematical logic and the physical fact that ours is a finite world are enough to show that those who dismiss conservation as a solution to our energy crisis and instead promote expanding supplies have it precisely backwards. Indeed, drilling in our wild lands and boosting pumping in the Middle East are precisely the wrong things to do because they encourage more use. Even driving more efficient cars is no solution if we drive more.
The only way to avoid crisis is to reduce growth in energy consumption to zero, or even to reduce our consumption.
Evar Nering is professor emeritus of mathematics at Arizona State University and lives in Scottsdale, Arizona.
| |
|
| Senate Republicans block windfall taxes on Big Oil
Posted: 6/13/2008 2:21:26 AM |
Mathematical logic and the physical fact that ours is a finite world are enough to show that those who dismiss conservation as a solution to our energy crisis and instead promote expanding supplies have it precisely backwards. Indeed, drilling in our wild lands and boosting pumping in the Middle East are precisely the wrong things to do because they encourage more use. Even driving more efficient cars is no solution if we drive more.
The only way to avoid crisis is to reduce growth in energy consumption to zero, or even to reduce our consumption.
I am all for reducing the use of fossil fuels to zero if possible, we can not expect the oil companies to embrace that idea until zero drops of oil are available and pricing fuel so high that it spins our economy into a depression does not seem to be a solution that the consumer can live with, so where do we go from here? Filling the pockets of those nations in our civilization who would prefer to see the golden goose (America and our allies) in the proverbial pot is probably not the right direction to continue in.
The answer seems to be ridiculously simple we need to embrace the team concept and put together the best team of researchers available in the energy and technology fields to R&D the use of non fossil fuel and other alternate energy sources. Who will do it? “We the People” should do it because we can not expect any one else too.
Some where some how we have placed an sinister image on the word government maybe because we have forgot who the government is. So we need to revisit the constitution and realize that we live in a society that is governed by “We the People “ we are the government and whether through complacency or just plain laziness we have not been doing what we need to do and as a result of that we are on the edge of economical and environmental extinction, history should be used as a tool to accurately predict the future. Every society that has risen to power has fallen because they have spread their economic and military resources to thin, if we allow our public servants to continue to serve their own interests we will become another example of a society that has repeated the mistakes of the past
It’s pass time for “We the People” to take on an active role in our future and the future of generations to come. If the government “We the People” takes on an active leadership role by developing a plan to move away from not to price us out of the use of fossil fuels private enterprises will have no choice but to get into the technology race.
Money is not the controlling factor in a free society, people are. Less then 10% of the people are controlling the other 90% and the only reason they are is because “We the People” are allowing it, it’s past time to take control and “We the People “ can
Some body is going to become a dinosaur “We the People “ can make that determination | |
|
| Senate Republicans block windfall taxes on Big Oil
Posted: 6/13/2008 2:40:46 AM | What makes oil companies special? Why not have a windfall profit tax on soda companies? On lumber companies? On CD companies? On toilet paper companies? On dollar store companies?
This is murky to make a "windfall profit" and wreaks of communism. It is a stupid solution by inadequate, unimaginative, and myopic politicians.
What we need to do is drill in the USA. If the Chinese can drill off our coast, we should be able to do so as well. We should examine the futures markets too and examine how speculation is driving the price up too. And last , but not least, stop turning food(corn) into fuel. | |
|
D_lily
|
Joined: 11/25/2007
Msg: 25 | |
| Senate Republicans block windfall taxes on Big Oil
Posted: 6/13/2008 2:55:11 AM | We should start conserving all energy resources. We should start drilling and have refinerys. The less companies are taxed the more they will be likely to keep the businesses here in America. Europe has started cutting taxes on businesses in an effort to draw more US companies to shut down here and reopen there.
There are so many rules, regulations, restictions that it is no wonder American businesses are leaving. If you tax companies less they stay here, if you tax people less they spend more either way that is good for the ecomony. To impose more tax is to stop growth in it's tracks.
We also need to stop with some of the enviromentalist who keep us from being energy independant. We are going to have to get some ok's about nuclear energy and drilling. In the meanwhile push to develope new energy resources for the long term solutions.
Putting additional taxes on any company or any person is just giving them less money to help drive the economy and make matters worse by rasing prices that get passed on to {us} the consumer making our prices higher making the tax we pay higher and it's an endless cycle. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
Don't post here if you can't keep your "Cool" 
