Republicans Block Democrat Bill to Tax Oil Profits

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Let me ask you guys something...just out of curiosity, who do you think is enjoying the profit oil companies are generating. The executives or the shareholders?

The executives by a long shot - as a shareholder I've been unimpressed - doing no better (and worse I believe) than the S&P500 over the past 8 years.

The same thing could be said in relation to you and any stockholders in your company.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Two more question, is it really fair to say that oil companies are like any other business corporation considering that fuel is a commodity that our entire economic system "sort of" revolves around? Would you consider it a monopoly?

"Big Oil" is normally thought of as five companies in the US.
Exxon Mobil
Shell
British Petroleum
Chevron
Conoco Phillips

I can't see how five competing companies constitutes a monopoly.

As an aside, the FTC did an investigation on price fixing in 2006 after Katrina and Rita. http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/05/katrinagasprices.shtm

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Windfall profits tax - bad idea.
Ending special tax breaks for oil companies - good idea.
It's unfortunate they were lumped together.

Agree.
It looks like every bill which goes through Congress gets some strings attached, which are hardly relevant. Is this typical for US? I don't remember anything like that in Europe or Russia.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Let me ask you guys something...just out of curiosity, who do you think is enjoying the profit oil companies are generating. The executives or the shareholders?

Well, for example I enjoy it, as I put some money there.
I bet a lot of retirement or state funds did the same.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Is this typical for US?

Yes.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,132]

>Per thier reports, they make 8% return on investment. How is this bad?

It's not.

You know, if you don't understand a post, perhaps it's best to not reply to it.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Per thier reports, they make 8% return on investment. How is this bad?

It's not.

You know, if one doesn't understand a post, perhaps it's best to not reply to it.

So why did you reply?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Trent 0]

Two possibilities here:

1. The Dems (and any backing Reps) are so completely idiotic that they actually think that any tax they put on a company or product won't be passed on to consumers. These people are to stupid to be in office.

2. The Dems (and any backing Reps) are, yet again, pandering to the lowest common denominator so that they can point fingers and say "Oh, Republicans hate the average guy... they didn't support our oil bill that would have punished the evil companies for *gasp* making money." These people also don't deserve to be in office.

Of interesting note is that Obama supported the bill... he doesn't deserve to be in office.

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 3,132]

Or they thought the ploy would work again and lower prices. Unfortunately the oil companies are getting wiser to that particular trick.

[Trent 0]

For Bill....

3. The Dems (or backing Reps) are stupid enough to assume that everyone else is as stupid as they are. They don't deserve to be in office.

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 3,132]

>The Dems (or backing Reps) are stupid enough to assume that everyone
>else is as stupid as they are. They don't deserve to be in office.

So what do you think about the McCain "gas tax relief bill" for summer? Does someone that stupid deserve to be in office?

[Trent 0]

Quote

So what do you think about the McCain "gas tax relief bill" for summer? Does someone that stupid deserve to be in office?

It's been done many times before. At least it isn't as naive as to INCREASE taxes thinking that SOMEHOW it'll decrease prices! Hey, if the government wants to STOP taxing something, why would that be a bad thing? On the outside it doesn't appear to be a "Hey the dems hate the little guy" ploy.

At least, the very least, it isn't as stupid as the Dem bill.

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 3,132]

>At least it isn't as naive . . .

I see you've been taking lessons from mnealtx! Bravo.

[Trent 0]

Quote

I see you've been taking lessons from mnealtx! Bravo.

And you're getting better at the dipshit one-liner attacks, I see! Good for you, Bill!

Did ya get past the one word that seemed to get your panties in a ruffle or are you just gonna actually change tunes now to defend how smart an idea it is to raise taxes and expect prices to drop???

Oh, hello again!

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Did ya get past the one word that seemed to get your panties in a ruffle or are you just gonna actually change tunes now to defend how smart an idea it is to raise taxes and expect prices to drop???

There was more in that bill than just the windfall profits tax. No one expected the bill to pass as it was presented. It's not mathematically possible when you know that Bush will veto it. Besides the obvious chance to show that the R's aren't interested in alternative energy promotion, maybe the idea was to openly debate the the subsidies and tax breaks that the oil companies get. In addition there was apparently a provision that would require that oil speculators put up more of their own collateral. Regardless of what you think about the subsidies, requiring traders to put up more collateral may very well indeed lead to lower oil prices.

That said, yes. Both sides are playing election year politics. The Dems are putting up things that they know won't pass and the Cons are obstructing everything that they possibly can.

[billvon 3,132]

>or are you just gonna actually change tunes now to defend how
>smart an idea it is to raise taxes and expect prices to drop???

It's not a good idea. It worked in the past because it put pressure on the oil companies to lower their prices.

Lowering taxes temporarily on oil companies is also a bad idea; the lower cost will not be reflected in the product (why would it be?) and the oil companies will simply make more money. When taxes go back to normal, oil companies will use the excuse to further raise prices. End result - higher prices, more oil company profit.

Two politicians have two bad ideas; neither will be implemented. What you conclude, therefore, is that the candidate who is in the party you disagree with should never be in office; the other candidate, well, he gets a pass.

Whatever makes you feel good.

[Trent 0]

Quote

It's not a good idea. It worked in the past because it put pressure on the oil companies to lower their prices.

When? Recently? Cuz prices haven't dropped anything significant in a while.

Quote

Lowering taxes temporarily on oil companies is also a bad idea; the lower cost will not be reflected in the product...

I understood it would eliminate the consumer tax on gasoline. Is that not correct? If it was to eliminate some tax on the oil companies, then yeah, that's stupid to think it'd even remotely cause a similar drop in prices. But if it's on the consumer side, I can see it working a little... but not forever.

I think ONE of those TWO politicians has a worse idea. I think many dems will agree that the bill was stupid, you do. I think Obama should not be in office for myriad reasons. If I'd had my say (if the world was perfect) I would not put McCain there either. But, alas, he is "less evil".

Oh, hello again!

[skybytch 273]

Quote

how much of the world'd oil do the big American companies control? 10% tops?

A more insightful question might be how much of the world's wealth do the CEO's of the big American oil companies control?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

how much of the world'd oil do the big American companies control? 10% tops?

A more insightful question might be how much of the world's wealth do the CEO's of the big American oil companies control?

News flash: Just because Joe Programmer makes 50k/year working at MSFT doesn't mean Bill Gates' income is unfair.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

how much of the world'd oil do the big American companies control? 10% tops?

A more insightful question might be how much of the world's wealth do the CEO's of the big American oil companies control?

A good question. Assuming oil was the equivalent of wealth, we'd start with 10%. A good sized number, but we'd have to think in other terms here.

In the third quarter of 2007, Exxon's gross sales were $102.3 billion. So, we can assume that Exxon has sales of roughly $400 billion per year. If we assume all of the big 5 have those sales, that'll be 2 trillion per year. No chump change.

Of course, it's NET income was 9.4 billion. Because it has to buy the oil and refine it and pay people, etc. But - the 2 trillion per year is a good figure.

The US government budget for 2008 is $2.9 trillion. Of that, it receives 2.66 trillion in receipts.

The money spent on Social Security was 608 billion - 50% more than the gross receipt of Exxon. 50%! When you've got one federal program at 150% of the largest oil producer, what's that say about who controls the wealth? Eh?

Medicare gets $386 billion. Right up there with Exxon. Another 209 billion for Medicaid. Add 324 billion for welfare, unemployment, etc. And $261 billion for interest on national debt. We're at almost 1.8 trillion. And we haven't even gotten to defense spending in a war year!

When looking at WHO controls wealth, the biggest corporation fo all is Uncle Sam.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

The entire world wealth is less than 100T, so 2T is a pretty big piece of the action.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

News flash: Just because Joe Programmer makes 50k/year working at MSFT doesn't mean Bill Gates' income is unfair.

This just in:
The US doesn't give Bill Gates $billions and use our military to invade countries like India so that he can cheaply produce a product that is expensive and doesn't work well.
(We might let the monopoly thing slide but at least we haven't killed anyone yet)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

News flash: Just because Joe Programmer makes 50k/year working at MSFT doesn't mean Bill Gates' income is unfair.

This just in:
The US doesn't give Bill Gates $billions and use our military to invade countries like India so that he can cheaply produce a product that is expensive and doesn't work well.
(We might let the monopoly thing slide but at least we haven't killed anyone yet)

Breaking report: That "war oil" *STILL* isn't a drop in the bucket compared to imports from Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and Venezuala... now over to you, Matt.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

This just in:
The US doesn't give Bill Gates $billions and use our military to invade countries like India so that he can cheaply produce a product that is expensive and doesn't work well.
(We might let the monopoly thing slide but at least we haven't killed anyone yet)

Breaking report: That "war oil" *STILL* isn't a drop in the bucket compared to imports from Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and Venezuala... now over to you, Matt.

Mike, you ignorant slut....





(Oh, crap. I hope people get the reference)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

This just in:
The US doesn't give Bill Gates $billions and use our military to invade countries like India so that he can cheaply produce a product that is expensive and doesn't work well.
(We might let the monopoly thing slide but at least we haven't killed anyone yet)

Breaking report: That "war oil" *STILL* isn't a drop in the bucket compared to imports from Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and Venezuala... now over to you, Matt.

Mike, you ignorant slut....





(Oh, crap. I hope people get the reference)

"Oh.... never mind!!!"

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706