|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Republicans block extra taxes on oil companies
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Republicans block extra taxes on oil companies
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| JUST1COMMENT |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080610...ess_oil_profits
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer 8 minutes ago
Senate Republicans blocked a proposal Tuesday to tax the windfall profits of the largest oil companies, despite pleas by Democratic leaders to use the measure to address America's anger over $4 a gallon gasoline.
The Democratic energy package would have imposed a tax on any "unreasonable" profits of the five largest U.S. oil companies and given the federal government more power to address oil market speculation that the bill's supporters argue has added to the crude oil price surge.
"Americans are furious about what's going on," declared Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and want Congress to do something about oil company profits and "an orgy of speculation" on oil markets.
But Republicans argued the Democratic proposal focusing on new oil industry taxes is not the answer to the country's energy problems.
"The American people are clamoring for relief at the pump," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., but if taxes are increased on the oil companies "they will get exactly what they don't want. The bill will raise taxes, increase imports."
The Democrats failed, 51-43, to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a GOP filibuster and bring the energy package up for consideration.
Separately, Democrats also failed to get Republican support for a proposal to extend tax breaks for wind, solar and other alternative energy development, and for the promotion of energy efficiency and conservation. The tax breaks have either expired or are scheduled to end this year.
The tax provisions were included in a broader $50 billion tax measure blocked by a GOP filibuster threat. A vote to take up the measure was 50-44, short of the 60 votes needed.
The windfall profits bill would have imposed a 25 percent tax on profits over what would be determined "reasonable" when compared to profits several years ago. The oil companies could have avoided the tax if they invested the money in alternative energy projects or refinery expansion. It also would have rescinded oil company tax breaks — worth $17 billion over the next 10 years — with the revenue to be used for tax incentives to producers of wind, solar and other alternative energy sources as well as for energy conservation.
The legislation also would:
_Require traders to put up more collateral in the energy futures markets and open the way for federal regulation of traders who are based in the United States but use foreign trading platforms. The measures are designed to reduce market speculation.
_Make oil and gas price gouging a federal crime, with stiff penalties of up to $5 million during a presidentially declared energy emergency.
_Authorize the Justice Department to bring charges of price fixing against countries that belong to the OPEC oil cartel.
Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has acknowledged that Americans are hurting from the high energy costs but strongly opposes the Democrats' response and has ridiculed those who "think we can tax our way out of this problem."
"Republicans by and large believe that the solution to this problem, in part, is to increase domestic production," McConnell said.
A GOP energy plan, rejected by the Senate last month, calls for opening a coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil development and to allow states to opt out of the national moratorium that has been in effect for a quarter century against oil and gas drilling in more than 80 percent of the country's coastal waters. |
|
|
| acefree |
im 100% against the democrat windfall tax. thats insane, but i guess no more insane then the republican tax cut for the oil cos.
why do dems want to hurt them, and reps want to help them?
why does a biz with record profits need help?
no one helps my small biz.
just let capitalism work and tax them like any other corporation.
i do agree with the other measures in the bill. |
|
|
| Jazzy |
| If they were actually taxed like any other company we'd probably have enough revenue to pay off the national debt in a few years. |
|
|
| wayfarm |
As a newbie, I want to provide my input respectfully...
Having said that, my understanding of the veto is that Republicans wanted to see that offshore drilling could be increased as well as drilling in Alaska.
I don't agree with the tax subsidies that the oil companies get. But, you make it more expensive to get oil, that will have a net effect of increasing the price at the pump. For those that lived through the Grey Davis energy disaster in California, we are leery of govt control on energy companies. |
|
|
| cal!guL.A. |
the price of oil and gas are high because of the Right but it is up to the Left to make it go down
Both Right and Left or corrupt and inept |
|
|
| Jazzy |
| Big oil isn't an energy company. It's big oil. |
|
|
| cal!guL.A. |
Quote: Originally posted by wayfarm
As a newbie, I want to provide my input respectfully...
Having said that, my understanding of the veto is that Republicans wanted to see that offshore drilling could be increased as well as drilling in Alaska.
I don't agree with the tax subsidies that the oil companies get. But, you make it more expensive to get oil, that will have a net effect of increasing the price at the pump. For those that lived through the Grey Davis energy disaster in California, we are leery of govt control on energy companies. |
FUCK YOU NOOB!!!! |
|
|
| Mr. Hole |
| The government should take control of all American oil companies and use the money for the betterment of the people, its a natural resouce and should not be owned by a select few. |
|
|
| JTProcess |
I was literally just watching MSNBC and the Nora broad who looks all dead inside asked a McCain surrogate...
"John McCain voted against this bill, does that mean he's a friend of big oil who supports them?"
and the McCain lady goes...
"That's kind of an unbalanced question Nora... but John blah blah blah is a leader we know... blah blah blah"
It was pretty classic... she must not be used to getting anything but the comfy little rim job Fox gives to anyone from the GOP. |
|
|
| DryOatmeal |
Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Hole
The government should take control of all American oil companies and use the money for the betterment of the people, its a natural resouce and should not be owned by a select few. |
:beer: |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by wayfarm
For those that lived through the Grey Davis energy disaster in California, we are leery of govt control on energy companies. |
That's pretty stupid.
I guess you never heard of Enron.
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| NickNuke |
Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Hole
The government should take control of all American oil companies and use the money for the betterment of the people, its a natural resouce and should not be owned by a select few. |
*** bless Amerika, comrade!
How about the gov't taking control of your property, bank account and the rest of YOUR assets? |
|
|
| gazill |
Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Hole
The government should take control of all American oil companies and use the money for the betterment of the people, its a natural resouce and should not be owned by a select few. |
Oil may be a natural resource, but the ability to extract, refine, store, transport, etc. is not. Putting the government in charge would be the least effective way to manage such a resource. |
|
|
| wayfarm |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
That's pretty stupid.
I guess you never heard of Enron.
:rolleyes: |
Off course I have, but I don't see the point you are driving at.
Want to elaborate?
So, how about we start increasing our offshore drilling, open up the Montana/Wyoming area, and increase drilling in Alaska? Increase domestic capacity.
Did the origional Poster forget about these things?
E |
|
|
| zimmie |
| welcome....don't mind him.....he's a one trick pony suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS)...you're a post or two away from being called a cunt by him....he's a beaten mongrel dog |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
This actually sounds like a bill that was punitive in spirit.
Problem, as I see it: Tax the oil companies and they raise their prices. The consumer gets it in the end.
The solution (admittedly very anti-democratic or free market): Government take-over and regulation of the oil companies.
This also is punitive in spirit but it would do more to bring down prices than a tax.
Is this a socialist liberal notion? May be but, if it happens, the blame rests solidly on the shoulders of the greedheads. |
|
|
| alter-ego69 |
| The government can't even manage their own restaurant and you expect them to manage the largest industry in the world? |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by wayfarm
Off course I have, but I don't see the point you are driving at.
Want to elaborate? |
If you need me to, then you have NO business discussing the california energy crisis, and government "involvement" therein.
I can tell you are a pea-brain.
You are dismissed. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by alter-ego69
The government can't even manage their own restaurant and you expect them to manage the largest industry in the world? |
All they'd have to do is put a cap on the oil companies' profits. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by alter-ego69
The government can't even manage their own restaurant |
That's because the government has been "run" by republicans and the lobbyists that control them and write policy for them. Destroying government is one of their goals. Pointing to its failure without recognizing the context of that failure, is the work of a DUPE.
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by NickNuke
*** bless Amerika, comrade!
How about the gov't taking control of your property, bank account and the rest of YOUR assets? |
apples and oranges
His bank account and assets are, more than likely, NOT natural resources. |
|
|
| alter-ego69 |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
All they'd have to do is put a cap on the oil companies' profits. |
And this would lower the cost of oil how?? |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by alter-ego69
And this would lower the cost of oil how?? |
By not allowing huge profits, it would bring down the cost to the consumer.
There would also have to be oversight to keep them from creating a false demand by reducing production.
I'm just voicing ideas. You're welcome to come up with something better. |
|
|
| alter-ego69 |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
By not allowing huge profits, it would bring down the cost to the consumer. |
By not allowing huge profits (btw...8% is not a huge profit), this would lower the cost of a barrel of oil, how??
I have a better idea....how about increasing supply. That is the ONLY way to lower the cost of a barrel of oil. |
|
|
| acefree |
Quote: Originally posted by alter-ego69
By not allowing huge profits (btw...8% is not a huge profit), this would lower the cost of a barrel of oil, how??
I have a better idea....how about increasing supply. That is the ONLY way to lower the cost of a barrel of oil. |
its not the ONLY way to lower cost.
i have a better idea.... how about decreasing demand. |
|
|
| Luther |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
By not allowing huge profits, it would bring down the cost to the consumer.
|
That's an extremely ignorant remark. |
|
|
| alter-ego69 |
Quote: Originally posted by acefree
its not the ONLY way to lower cost.
i have a better idea.... how about decreasing demand. |
What do you propose....nuking China and India? |
|
|
| Luther |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
That's because the government has been "run" by republicans and the lobbyists that control them and write policy for them. Destroying government is one of their goals. Pointing to its failure without recognizing the context of that failure, is the work of a DUPE.
:rolleyes: |
You've been reading too much Naomi Klein. |
|
|
| acefree |
Quote: Originally posted by alter-ego69
What do you propose....nuking China and India? |
nuking china might be good, but we cant.
switching to alt fuels seems like a wiser move.
increasing supply is only temporary.
decreasing demand isnt. |
|
|
| Luther |
Quote: Originally posted by alter-ego69
What do you propose....nuking China and India? |
:rolleyes:
How about increasing efficiency? Increasing the supply of substitutes? |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
theyre right..if we tax them
then they will raise their price of their gasoline
in the end we will pay |
|
|
| zimmie |
Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE
theyre right..if we tax them
then they will raise their price of their gasoline
in the end we will pay |
thats what we heard about the gas tax "holiday".....why would this be any different? |
|
|
| alter-ego69 |
Quote: Originally posted by acefree
nuking china might be good, but we cant.
switching to alt fuels seems like a wiser move.
increasing supply is only temporary.
decreasing demand isnt. |
Alternative fuels are coming but it will be at least a decade before they are the mainstream. Until then we need to DRILL DRILL DRILL.
With the global economy expanding like it is, decreasing demand will not happen. |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
thats what we heard about the gas tax "holiday".....why would this be any different? |
gas tax holiday is dumb too
in the end we pay
in fact..i would raise the gas tax right now
50 cents per gallon
why because if we don't and the price keeps going up than that would cause windfall profits but if we tax it higher that may lower the ceiling of what they can charge us. i am not sure but in england does the price go up this rapidly or are we paying so their price doesn't go up that rapidly i know they tax it high and maybe thats the reason it doesn't go up that much. oil companies know that if they charge to much that would cause alot of chaos so they just wanna charge just enough that we can still afford it
anyone |
|
|
| zimmie |
after we turn over oil and health care to the government, it would only make sense to have them maunfacture vehicles too and assign us vehicles to drive based on family size......or just tell us how many kids to have...
I love these liberals who complain Bush has made the government too big.... |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by alter-ego69
By not allowing huge profits (btw...8% is not a huge profit), this would lower the cost of a barrel of oil, how??
I have a better idea....how about increasing supply. That is the ONLY way to lower the cost of a barrel of oil. |
Capping profits would not reduce the cost per barrel. It would reduce the profit over the cost per barrel and it would give us a lower price at the pumps.
Supply is not the problem. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
That's an extremely ignorant remark. |
Got any better ideas, genius? |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
:rolleyes:
How about increasing efficiency? Increasing the supply of substitutes? |
Talk about an ignorant idea! :rolleyes:
Increasing efficiency doesn't do anything for price per gallon. If we start using less gasoline, the gas companies raise their unit cost to compensate.
Supply of substitutes will lead us away from oil companies but will give greedheads in the new industry an oppurtunity to fuck us. |
|
|
| Luther |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
Got any better ideas, genius? |
Yes. Do nothing. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
You've been reading too much Naomi Klein. |
You are too beholden to a narrow dogma.
Good government built our country and our middle class.
Republicanism is destroying both. |
|
|
| alter-ego69 |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
Capping profits would not reduce the cost per barrel. It would reduce the profit over the cost per barrel and it would give us a lower price at the pumps.
Supply is not the problem. |
You're joking, right? Are you saying the price is this high solely due to the oil companies profits? Please tell me you're not that ignorant. |
|
|
| Luther |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
Talk about an ignorant idea! :rolleyes:
Increasing efficiency doesn't do anything for price per gallon. If we start using less gasoline, the gas companies raise their unit cost to compensate.
Supply of substitutes will lead us away from oil companies but will give greedheads in the new industry an oppurtunity to fuck us. |
Wow. You are either a raving conspiracy theorist ("worse" than any 9/11 truther) or just extremely ignorant. You should be aware of the facts and have at least some understanding of basic economics before you attempt to engage in this discussion.
Less than 5 percent of the world's oil and natural gas reserves are controlled by U.S. energy companies. OPEC itself can hardly control the price of petroleum, so to think that the relatively insignificant U.S. oil companies are fixing the price is absurd. The price is set by the market.
Increasing efficiency decreases demand, thus decreasing prices; to say otherwise betrays total ignorance and lack of common sense. If the average MPG of the average American driver increases from 25 MPG to 50 MPG, total consumption (demand) will be cut in half. The market price at which suppliers can sell will fall in order to meet the price buyers are willing to pay. Alternative energy sources and other substitutes such as public transportation have the same effect on price. |
|
|
| booybob |
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
Wow. You are either a raving conspiracy theorist ("worse" than any 9/11 truther) or just extremely ignorant. You should be aware of the facts and have at least some understanding of basic economics before you attempt to engage in this discussion.
Less than 5 percent of the world's oil and natural gas reserves are controlled by U.S. energy companies. OPEC itself can hardly control the price of petroleum, so to think that the relatively insignificant U.S. oil companies are fixing the price is absurd. The price is set by the market.
Increasing efficiency decreases demand, thus decreasing prices; to say otherwise betrays total ignorance and lack of common sense. If the average MPG of the average American driver increases from 25 MPG to 50 MPG, total consumption (demand) will be cut in half. The market price at which suppliers can sell will fall in order to meet the price buyers are willing to pay. Alternative energy sources and other substitutes such as public transportation have the same effect on price. |
Unless demand increases in other places ie China,India and Brazil.
You can increase efficiency all you want but, if demand from other countries rises
you still have the same problem. Efficiency+ more supply would guarantee lower prices. |
|
|
| Luther |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
You are too beholden to a narrow dogma.
Good government built our country and our middle class.
Republicanism is destroying both. |
I am not beholden to any dogma.
Your second and third statements contradict: republicanism was the form of government first established in this country, but today it exists in name and reputation only.
"Good government" is such a vague term, I am not sure how to respond. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
I am not beholden to any dogma. |
Sure.
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
Your second and third statements contradict: |
Only if you are being a quaint fucking asshole!
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
republicanism was the form of government first established in this country, but today it exists in name and reputation only. |
I'm speaking of the modern Republican Party and its ideology. But you know that....
:rolleyes:
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
"Good government" is such a vague term, I am not sure how to respond. |
You'll figure it out some day! |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
Wow. You are either a raving conspiracy theorist ("worse" than any 9/11 truther) or just extremely ignorant. You should be aware of the facts and have at least some understanding of basic economics before you attempt to engage in this discussion.
Less than 5 percent of the world's oil and natural gas reserves are controlled by U.S. energy companies. OPEC itself can hardly control the price of petroleum, so to think that the relatively insignificant U.S. oil companies are fixing the price is absurd. The price is set by the market.
Increasing efficiency decreases demand, thus decreasing prices; to say otherwise betrays total ignorance and lack of common sense. If the average MPG of the average American driver increases from 25 MPG to 50 MPG, total consumption (demand) will be cut in half. The market price at which suppliers can sell will fall in order to meet the price buyers are willing to pay. Alternative energy sources and other substitutes such as public transportation have the same effect on price. |
Oil companies' profits are higher than ever.
Why wouldn't capping those profits lower the pump price?
I never said oil companies were fixing the prices. You're hearing hoofbeats and assuming zebras instead of the more rational assumption of horses.
Regarding oil companies lowering prices as demand goes down. In textbook economics, that's all well and good. But, the textbooks don't factor in greed. The oil companies would increase prices to make up for lost revenue. As demand continued to lessen, prices would eventually come down. Right now, however, we won't settle for "eventually." We need immediate relief.
I'm sincerely sorry for appearing so "ignorant" to you but your ideas seem to me that you're moving the opportunity for greedy profits from one industry to another. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by alter-ego69
You're joking, right? Are you saying the price is this high solely due to the oil companies profits? Please tell me you're not that ignorant. |
No, I am not saying that at all.
I am saying that greed is part of the problem that could be taken out of the equation by caps and oversight. Prices to the US consumer would come down.
Obviously, there's a lot more that could and should be done. I was just trying to throw out a reletively simple idea that would bring relief.
Sorry if it sounds ignorant to you and Luther. |
|
|
| alter-ego69 |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
Oil companies' profits are higher than ever. |
Because they are selling more product than ever.
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
Why wouldn't capping those profits lower the pump price? |
Why would they. The price at the pump has little to due with profits. I take that back, the profit (in the form of taxes) the government makes off of every gallon of gas has a big effect. |
|
|
| Luther |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
No, I am not saying that at all.
I am saying that greed is part of the problem that could be taken out of the equation by caps and oversight. Prices to the US consumer would come down.
Obviously, there's a lot more that could and should be done. I was just trying to throw out a reletively simple idea that would bring relief.
Sorry if it sounds ignorant to you and Luther. |
It doesn't sound ignorant, it is. |
|
|
| Luther |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
Oil companies' profits are higher than ever.
Why wouldn't capping those profits lower the pump price?
I never said oil companies were fixing the prices. You're hearing hoofbeats and assuming zebras instead of the more rational assumption of horses.
Regarding oil companies lowering prices as demand goes down. In textbook economics, that's all well and good. But, the textbooks don't factor in greed. The oil companies would increase prices to make up for lost revenue. As demand continued to lessen, prices would eventually come down. Right now, however, we won't settle for "eventually." We need immediate relief.
I'm sincerely sorry for appearing so "ignorant" to you but your ideas seem to me that you're moving the opportunity for greedy profits from one industry to another. |
According to your theory, Microsoft should be able to sell copies of Windows 98 for a million dollars apiece in order to maintain the same level of profit at a decreased level of demand. Similarly, top hats should sell for ten thousand dollars, corsets for fifty thousand, and togas for a hundred thousand. As you can see, the hypothesis that prices go up as demand goes down is truly bizarre and has no basis in reality. You can denounce human nature as much as you like, but that doesn't give your ideas any more credibility.
What would happen if the government capped the price of gasoline below the market price? You should know the answer to that question because it was already tried in the not to distant past. Demand would exceed supply and shortages would result. A black market in gasoline would emerge - people would buy it at the government mandated price and resell it at the market price. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
According to your theory, Microsoft should be able to sell copies of Windows 98 for a million dollars apiece in order to maintain the same level of profit at a decreased level of demand. Similarly, top hats should sell for ten thousand dollars, corsets for fifty thousand, and togas for a hundred thousand. As you can see, the hypothesis that prices go up as demand goes down is truly bizarre and has no basis in reality. You can denounce human nature as much as you like, but that doesn't give your ideas any more credibility.
What would happen if the government capped the price of gasoline below the market price? You should know the answer to that question because it was already tried in the not to distant past. Demand would exceed supply and shortages would result. A black market in gasoline would emerge - people would buy it at the government mandated price and resell it at the market price. |
TOP HATS, WINDOWS 98, ETC ARE NOT ESSENTIAL.
OIL IS CURRENTLY AN ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF OUR ABILITY TO FUNCTION. AS SUCH, IT SHOULD BE REGULATED AND CONTROLED TO AVOID GOUGING AT THE PUMP. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
It doesn't sound ignorant, it is. |
Yeah and your brilliant idea to do nothing is a pussified defeatist attitude.
See, Luther, to accomplish something, you bounce ideas around. If it's not a good idea, at least it's an idea. It's sorta like what happens in a think tank.
You say we should do nothing. That's beyond ignorant. That's just plain fucking stupid. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
Yeah and your brilliant idea to do nothing is a pussified defeatist attitude.
See, Luther, to accomplish something, you bounce ideas around. If it's not a good idea, at least it's an idea. It's sorta like what happens in a think tank.
You say we should do nothing. That's beyond ignorant. That's just plain fucking stupid. |
Dude....you are showing the average economic IQ of the typical Barack Hussein Obama supporter... ZERO. Greed is not a factor in the price of gas...it is ridiculous claim. It has no basis in fact or reason. You have done nothing to prove your case, because it is unprovable. It is a statement born of economic ignorance and simplemindedness. Unfortunately, too many Americans suffer from the same lack of economic education that you suffer from. If you care too, please read Basic Economics, a Citizens Guide to the Economy. by Dr. Thomas Sowell. It is the cure for what ails you. It should be required reading in every High School in America.
Luther is absolutely right (and the others who said similar) The only way to reduce the price is to decrease demand, (in the consumer market, or futures market) or increase supply, or a combination of both. THe oil companies are making record profit BECAUSE of ever increasing demand. The profit margin has remained relatively the same for years. Furthermore, the profit margin for oil companies is much smaller than that of other industries.
Doing nothing is much better than doing what you propose, which will only decrease investment by the oil companies, and decrease investment in the oil companies. THousands will be put out of work, and the the value of millions of stockholders (MANY mutual funds, pension funds, 401(k) plans) would fall drastically.
Alternative energies are currently being developed...it will probably take 20-30 years before their use is widespread enough to make a dent in demand for oil. Until then we need to increase supply. Which will have the added benefit of reducing our need to import foreign oil. |
|
|
| alter-ego69 |
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
As you can see, the hypothesis that prices go up as demand goes down is truly bizarre and has no basis in reality. |
Actually, there is one place where that is occurring. That would be the US Post Office. |
|
|
| Luther |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
Yeah and your brilliant idea to do nothing is a pussified defeatist attitude.
See, Luther, to accomplish something, you bounce ideas around. If it's not a good idea, at least it's an idea. It's sorta like what happens in a think tank.
You say we should do nothing. That's beyond ignorant. That's just plain fucking stupid. |
You asked for a better idea than what you proposed. Doing nothing would be better than what you proposed. That's how bad what you proposed is. |
|
|
| Luther |
Quote: Originally posted by alter-ego69
Actually, there is one place where that is occurring. That would be the US Post Office. |
A government monopoly. |
|
|
| ihateralphiec |
Quote: Originally posted by alter-ego69
Because they are selling more product than ever.
|
Nitpicking here,
They are selling ever so slightly more product than ever at a huge operating profit because the cost to drill is not going up at nearly the rate that the cost they are selling it at. |
|
|
| nikkyo |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
By not allowing huge profits, it would bring down the cost to the consumer.
|
Do you think profit motive is immoral? |
|
|
| acefree |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Dude....you are showing the average economic IQ of the typical Barack Hussein Obama supporter... ZERO. Greed is not a factor in the price of gas...it is ridiculous claim. It has no basis in fact or reason. You have done nothing to prove your case, because it is unprovable. It is a statement born of economic ignorance and simplemindedness. Unfortunately, too many Americans suffer from the same lack of economic education that you suffer from. If you care too, please read Basic Economics, a Citizens Guide to the Economy. by Dr. Thomas Sowell. It is the cure for what ails you. It should be required reading in every High School in America.
Luther is absolutely right (and the others who said similar) The only way to reduce the price is to decrease demand, (in the consumer market, or futures market) or increase supply, or a combination of both. THe oil companies are making record profit BECAUSE of ever increasing demand. The profit margin has remained relatively the same for years. Furthermore, the profit margin for oil companies is much smaller than that of other industries.
Doing nothing is much better than doing what you propose, which will only decrease investment by the oil companies, and decrease investment in the oil companies. THousands will be put out of work, and the the value of millions of stockholders (MANY mutual funds, pension funds, 401(k) plans) would fall drastically.
Alternative energies are currently being developed...it will probably take 20-30 years before their use is widespread enough to make a dent in demand for oil. Until then we need to increase supply. Which will have the added benefit of reducing our need to import foreign oil. |
i agree with everything in your post, except when u carry charlies ideas onto all obama supporters. he speaks only for himself. but charlie isnt alone, i think mccain admitted he really doesnt understand economics well either. i respect his honesty on that. |
|
|
| acefree |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
Yeah and your brilliant idea to do nothing is a pussified defeatist attitude.
See, Luther, to accomplish something, you bounce ideas around. If it's not a good idea, at least it's an idea. It's sorta like what happens in a think tank.
You say we should do nothing. That's beyond ignorant. That's just plain fucking stupid. |
in some ways, doing nothing is doing something, which is letting capitalism work. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by nikkyo
Do you think profit motive is immoral? |
does amoral count? |
|
|
| mingmen |
 |
|
|
| Luther |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
nationalize |
At least that you could rationally argue for. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by acefree
in some ways, doing nothing is doing something, which is letting capitalism work. |
Possibly. I wasn't expecting such a rude reaction from a few over a suggestion.
I guess, the major problem I'm having is to reconvince myself that capitalism works for necessary services.
Maybe it's time to reel in some of these corporations.
Sorry for appearing so offensively ignorant to a few of you. The cunty reaction from Luther, frankly, caught me a little off guard.
These are incredibly troubling times and ideas get tossed around. To be rudely dismissed by a few who have been a part of the problem and not the solution is very offensive. |
|
|
| ArivacaCharlie |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Dude....you are showing the average economic IQ of the typical Barack Hussein Obama supporter... ZERO. Greed is not a factor in the price of gas...it is ridiculous claim. It has no basis in fact or reason. You have done nothing to prove your case, because it is unprovable. It is a statement born of economic ignorance and simplemindedness. Unfortunately, too many Americans suffer from the same lack of economic education that you suffer from. If you care too, please read Basic Economics, a Citizens Guide to the Economy. by Dr. Thomas Sowell. It is the cure for what ails you. It should be required reading in every High School in America.
Luther is absolutely right (and the others who said similar) The only way to reduce the price is to decrease demand, (in the consumer market, or futures market) or increase supply, or a combination of both. THe oil companies are making record profit BECAUSE of ever increasing demand. The profit margin has remained relatively the same for years. Furthermore, the profit margin for oil companies is much smaller than that of other industries.
Doing nothing is much better than doing what you propose, which will only decrease investment by the oil companies, and decrease investment in the oil companies. THousands will be put out of work, and the the value of millions of stockholders (MANY mutual funds, pension funds, 401(k) plans) would fall drastically.
Alternative energies are currently being developed...it will probably take 20-30 years before their use is widespread enough to make a dent in demand for oil. Until then we need to increase supply. Which will have the added benefit of reducing our need to import foreign oil. |
Greed has a lot to do with a lot of inflated prices in the US. I understand basic economics and, frankly, maybe I am reaching when I make these suggestions. But, of course, like your hero McCain, I'm far from being able to call myself an economist. I understand that such ideas are not in line with simple economics and are, in fact, fairly radical.
But, I see a time coming when the government could take over the fuel industry and use some of the same points (correctly or not) that I made.
Whatever the Bush Administration has done economically has failed. They've failed us in every way.
So, instead of just rudely dismissing a suggestion by me, at least consider it and explain why it will not work.
I've heard enough people on the news say supply is not the problem. So, what is?
Your support of Bush, frankly, makes me question the validity of any of your ideas but I have not rudely dismissed them as you have done to mine.
So, like most Obama supporters, I'm willing to get called on the carpet for a bad idea but encourage people to continue coming up with new innovative ways to fix the problems created by true and extreme ignorance and a simple minded attitude to a complex problem. |
|
|
| wayfarm |
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
A government monopoly. |
Boo-Yah, touchdown! |
|
|
| nikkyo |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
does amoral count? |
Capitalism is based on individual rights. The only way to violate individual rights is by the use of physical force: theft, murder, fraud, insider trading, and whatever else. In a laissez faire environment, no group may initiate the use of force against others. To recognize individual rights is to ban the use of physical force. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by nikkyo
Capitalism is based on individual rights. The only way to violate individual rights is by the use of physical force: theft, murder, fraud, insider trading, and whatever else. In a laissez faire environment, no group may initiate the use of force against others. To recognize individual rights is to ban the use of physical force. |
:sleep: |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by acefree
i agree with everything in your post, except when u carry charlies ideas onto all obama supporters. he speaks only for himself. but charlie isnt alone, i think mccain admitted he really doesnt understand economics well either. i respect his honesty on that. |
Except that I didn't carry his ideas onto all Barack Hussein Obama supporters... I said that his economic ignorance is typical of Barack Hussein Obama supporters. If you don't understand the difference, then I can't help you. |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Except that I didn't carry his ideas onto all Barack Hussein Obama supporters... I said that his economic ignorance is typical of Barack Hussein Obama supporters. If you don't understand the difference, then I can't help you. |
you realize no neutral person will ever listen to a word you say because of your insistence in using the Hussein reference every 10 words, right? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by nikkyo
Capitalism is based on individual rights. |
I think corporate rights have exploded to the detriment of the individual |
|
|
| Luther |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Except that I didn't carry his ideas onto all Barack Hussein Obama supporters... I said that his economic ignorance is typical of Barack Hussein Obama supporters. If you don't understand the difference, then I can't help you. |
Economic ignorance is typical of McCain supporters, as well. Fundamental economic understanding is atypical. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by ArivacaCharlie
Greed has a lot to do with a lot of inflated prices in the US. I understand basic economics and, frankly, maybe I am reaching when I make these suggestions. But, of course, like your hero McCain, I'm far from being able to call myself an economist. I understand that such ideas are not in line with simple economics and are, in fact, fairly radical.
But, I see a time coming when the government could take over the fuel industry and use some of the same points (correctly or not) that I made.
Whatever the Bush Administration has done economically has failed. They've failed us in every way.
So, instead of just rudely dismissing a suggestion by me, at least consider it and explain why it will not work.
I've heard enough people on the news say supply is not the problem. So, what is?
Your support of Bush, frankly, makes me question the validity of any of your ideas but I have not rudely dismissed them as you have done to mine.
So, like most Obama supporters, I'm willing to get called on the carpet for a bad idea but encourage people to continue coming up with new innovative ways to fix the problems created by true and extreme ignorance and a simple minded attitude to a complex problem. |
You have yet to show that 'greed' is a factor, OTHER than simply stating it. THe profit margin of the oil companies has been relatively the same for years. Here is an example... Suppose a company manufactures and sells widgets. Each widget costs $.90 to make, and they sell each widget for $1.00. THey make .10 per widget, giving them a 10% profit margin. Now though, costs have risen, and each widget costs $1.80 to make, and they sell each for $2.00. Now they make $.20 per widget, but the profit margin is still 10%. Now if they sell the same amount or more widgets, their profits will rise significantly. Are they greedy because they keep the same profit margin??
Supply and Demand is the problem, static or slowly increasing supply, and faster increasing demand. What do you think would be a companies response to having their profits capped by the government? Do you think they would continue to invest in new ventures and products?? Do you think they might slow down or stop operations when approaching that magic profit number? How many people might get laid off? Would you invest in a company where the profits were capped? Do you think the stock price might fall??
THis is not rocket science. The ONLY solutions are to increase supply, decrease demand or a combination of both. (you could also increase supply faster than demand increases) THere are various ways to accomplish these goals, but capping profits, windfall profits tax, or nationalization ( would you honestly want the government running th gas/oil industry?? Really??? ) addresses none of those solutions.
McCain is hardly my hero...he is a horrible candidate, and I am afraid will make a horrible President....but is still preferrable to Barack Hussein Obama..its not even close. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
Economic ignorance is typical of McCain supporters, as well. Fundamental economic understanding is atypical. |
Unfortunately, you are correct. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
you realize no neutral person will ever listen to a word you say because of your insistence in using the Hussein reference every 10 words, right? |
Why are you still crying about this? I have told you why I use it. If you don't like it, thats too bad. Every time I mention Barack Hussein Obama's name, I will say it completely. If people discount facts because I use someones full name, they probably wouldn't understand what I was talking about anyway. |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Why are you still crying about this? I have told you why I use it. If you don't like it, thats too bad. Every time I mention Barack Hussein Obama's name, I will say it completely. If people discount facts because I use someones full name, they probably wouldn't understand what I was talking about anyway. |
yes, you are using his full name to try and perpetuate fears that he is a muslim to try and reach the lowest common denominator of people. Bravo. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
yes, you are using his full name to try and perpetuate fears that he is a muslim to try and reach the lowest common denominator of people. Bravo. |
Lets try the truth now.. (and this is about the 10th time you have been told) I use his full name because HE uses it when he thinks its advantageous, while his campaign and Obama-bots (this means you) cry and whine anytime anyone even references his middle name.
You are such a whiny cunt. |
|
|
| Luther |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
you realize no neutral person will ever listen to a word you say because of your insistence in using the Hussein reference every 10 words, right? |
What's the problem if he does? Has Obama asked for his middle name to be used? |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
What's the problem if he does? |
Context. Don't be naive. He is doing it for purpose. It's not out of respect |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
Context. Don't be naive. He is doing it for purpose. It's not out of respect |
If Obama uses it.....so can I.
Barack Hussein Obama:
“This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he’s not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush,” |
|
|
| spankysxxx |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
If Obama uses it.....so can I.
Barack Hussein Obama:
“This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he’s not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush,” |
Mikes using that Neoconservative logic again. Duh, if his middle name were "David" he wouldn't be
making such a silly mess in his pants about it. All this is in print too. Mike will be in his 30's in the
not so distant future and regret his almost complete pandering to the right side. Shit, I'm for
enforcing existing border laws, our right to bear arms, tax-loopholes for the 1%, not providing
national healthcare and drilling Alaska until it looks like swiss cheese yet Mikey would/does
consider me a "leftbot" simply because I have the balls to say that this administration fucked
this country. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Why are you still crying about this? I have told you why I use it. If you don't like it, thats too bad. Every time I mention Barack Hussein Obama's name, I will say it completely. If people discount facts because I use someones full name, they probably wouldn't understand what I was talking about anyway. |
it is your opinion they discount, genius |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
If Obama uses it.....so can I. |
 |
|
|
| nikkyo |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
I think corporate rights have exploded to the detriment of the individual |
So how are these corporations evil? How are corporations rights detrimental to the consumer? Do you think its immoral for corporations to seek profits? |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by spankysxxx
Mikes using that Neoconservative logic again. Duh, if his middle name were "David" he wouldn't be
making such a silly mess in his pants about it. All this is in print too. Mike will be in his 30's in the
not so distant future and regret his almost complete pandering to the right side. Shit, I'm for
enforcing existing border laws, our right to bear arms, tax-loopholes for the 1%, not providing
national healthcare and drilling Alaska until it looks like swiss cheese yet Mikey would/does
consider me a "leftbot" simply because I have the balls to say that this administration fucked
this country. |
Neocon boogie man is let out again...everyone run. !!!! |
|
|
| spankysxxx |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Neocon boogie man is let out again...everyone run. !!!! |
I think Mike has hit the wall, no clever comeback, no witty remark. No real comment, no neocon
rhetoric. Just the boogy man. At least try to entertain. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by spankysxxx
I think Mike has hit the wall, no clever comeback, no witty remark. No real comment, no neocon
rhetoric. Just the boogy man. At least try to entertain. |
Yeah, that 'you're a neocon' shit in almost every one of your posts, is just dripping with creativity... :rolleyes: |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by nikkyo
So how are these corporations evil? |
not evil as much as selfish and amoral.
Quote: Originally posted by nikkyo
How are corporations rights detrimental to the consumer? |
Detrimental to the consumer in that they are siphoning off the wealth of the nation leading to an undermining our purchasing power. detrimental to the entire country and our international relations too
Quote: Originally posted by nikkyo
Do you think its immoral for corporations to seek profits? |
Amoral. and that is what they do exclusively |
|
|
| nikkyo |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
not evil as much as selfish and amoral.
Detrimental to the consumer in that they are siphoning off the wealth of the nation leading to an undermining our purchasing power. detrimental to the entire country and our international relations too
Amoral. and that is what they do exclusively |
There is moral virtue in profit. And selfishness is good.
I work for nothing but my own profit--which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. . . . I do not sacrifice my interests to them nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage--and I am proud of every penny that I have earned in this manner. . . . I refuse to apologize for my ability--I refuse to apologize for my success--I refuse to apologize for my money. Entrepreneur Hank Rearden, inventor of Rearden Metal, a form of metal stronger than steel. You can substitute Rearden with any great minds: Howard Stern, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, Mutt (for the SFN), you, me. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by nikkyo
There is moral virtue in profit. And selfishness is good.
I work for nothing but my own profit--which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. . . . I do not sacrifice my interests to them nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage--and I am proud of every penny that I have earned in this manner. . . . I refuse to apologize for my ability--I refuse to apologize for my success--I refuse to apologize for my money. Entrepreneur Hank Rearden, inventor of Rearden Metal, a form of metal stronger than steel. You can substitute Rearden with any great minds: Howard Stern, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, Mutt (for the SFN), you, me. |
it is the influence of multinationals that I find so troublesome |
|
|
| zimmie |
Rev,
Your apparent annoyance of someone using Obama's middle name is indicative that you find it as a negative. Obama is apparently proud of it, or at least doesn't view it as something shameful, he could have changed it many years ago if he did.....Why are you ashamed and annoyed by his full name? |
|
|
|
|
|
