NationStates Jolt Archive

Senate Republicans today blocked an attempt to take away billions of dollars in tax breaks for Big Oil. Even more incredible, though, is that Republicans followed up that gift to Big Oil by blocking 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.

Could these guys be any deeper into Big Oil's pockets?

In April an Exxon Mobil exec testifying before Congress said that if the price of a barrel of oil were being driven solely by the market forces of supply and demand then it would be priced at $50-55. The current $135-140 barrel of oil price is not the product of increased Chinese and Indian demand, a temporary spike in summer driving, or the fuel inefficiency of American SUVs.

This is a speculative oil bubble, not unlike the recent housing bubble or the tech stock bubble of the '90s. Last Thursday the price of a barrel of oil shot up $11 dollars overnight. There was no sudden overnight demand for oil that would account for that price increase. And now the Russians, serving their own oil interests, are trying to drive this speculative market higher by predicting oil at $250 a barrel.

In more bad news for the GOP, the 14th annual "Attitudes in the American Workplace" survey, conducted by Zogby revealed:


52% of working Americans no longer believe the American Dream is attainable and 74% say it is not as attainable as it was eight years ago
45% of US workers are bitter and blame the political system for the deterioration of their economic circumstances
77% of US workers say they feel unrepresented by the political system on workplace issues such as healthcare, retirement, fuel prices and the economy

As Clinton campaign strategist James Carville pointed out in the 1992 presidential campaign, "It's the economy, stupid." Short of a direct military threat to the country, economics trumps all other things in national elections.

Senate Republicans today blocked an attempt to take away billions of dollars in tax breaks for Big Oil. Even more incredible, though, is that Republicans followed up that gift to Big Oil by blocking 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.


How, in your mind, would the American people have benefited from higher taxation on the oil companies?

How, in your mind, would the American people have benefited from higher taxation on the oil companies?
How have we benefited from higher taxes on alternative sources of energy? Because that is what the Republicans did in blocking an extension of 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.

But, to your original question. Back in 2000 then candidate George W. Bush strongly criticized Al Gore because the price of gas had gone from $.90 a gallon in 1999 to $1.57 a year later. Imagine if back in 1999 the Clinton administration (to make this less partisan) had imposed a $2.00 tax on a gallon of gas (graduated to increase in $.50 increments every six months up to the $2 mark) with every penny invested in R & D for renewable, sustainable sources of energy. Imagine if our government recognized that our dependency of foreign oil is a security issue greater than terrorism and acted accordingly. Imagine if the United States led the world toward new sources of energy that reduced the threat of global warming.

Would those things benefit the American people?

How, in your mind, would the American people have benefited from higher taxation on the oil companies?

Pretty simple, really: The higher taxes on the oil companies can pay for the tax breaks on renewable energy companies.

Silly, isn't it?

most likely its just a policy of avoiding any chance of more price speculation

How, in your mind, would the American people have benefited from higher taxation on the oil companies?

the money could of gone to providing subsidies for low-income families through the difficult winter to come? *is probabaly thinking of gas*

Pretty simple, really: The higher taxes on the oil companies can pay for the tax breaks on renewable energy companies.

Silly, isn't it?

considering energy companies are big investors in new energy technology it may just be more hassle I guess :confused:

In every election, except one, if the president's approval rating has been below 50% in June his party has lost the White House. The one exception was Harry Truman's come-from-behind win over Dewey.

George W. Bush's approval ratings are below 30%. He reached the highest disapproval rating (71%) of any president in history. Americans vote their pocket books and because of that the GOP is going to take a pounding this election year.

How have we benefited from higher taxes on alternative sources of energy? Because that is what the Republicans did in blocking an extension of 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.

But, to your original question. Back in 2000 then candidate George W. Bush strongly criticized Al Gore because the price of gas had gone from $.90 a gallon in 1999 to $1.57 a year later. Imagine if back in 1999 the Clinton administration (to make this less partisan) had imposed a $2.00 tax on a gallon of gas (graduated to increase in $.50 increments every six months up to the $2 mark) with every penny invested in R & D for renewable, sustainable sources of energy. Imagine if our government recognized that our dependency of foreign oil is a security issue greater than terrorism and acted accordingly. Imagine if the United States led the world toward new sources of energy that reduced the threat of global warming.

Would those things benefit the American people?

Pretty simple, really: The higher taxes on the oil companies can pay for the tax breaks on renewable energy companies.

Silly, isn't it?

So... taxing the oil company, thus causing them to increase the price per gallon at the pump, thus driving inflation through the roof helps the American people by using this taxed money to subsidize experimental technology that may or may not produce a viable alternative in some unspecified future time?


most likely its just a policy of avoiding any chance of more price speculation

the money could of gone to providing subsidies for low-income families through the difficult winter to come? *is probabaly thinking of gas*


Meanwhile generating MORE low-income families as businesses are forced to make cutbacks to be able to afford fuel, which is now more expensive because the costs are transferred to the consumer to pay for the higher taxes.


considering energy companies are big investors in new energy technology it may just be more hassle I guess :confused:

That's putting it mildly.

You have the American dream! The American dream is to be born in the gutter and have nothing. Then to raise up and have all the money in the world, and stick it in your ears and go PLBTLBTLBLTLBTLBLT!! That's a pretty good dream.

Eddie Izzard on the American Dream

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiYev0AFmCE&feature=related

YOU WANT TO WATCH THE MOVIE

So... taxing the oil company, thus causing them to increase the price per gallon at the pump, thus driving inflation through the roof helps the American people by using this taxed money to subsidize experimental technology that may or may not produce a viable alternative in some unspecified future time?

I think the idea is to reduce consumption thus stabilizing price whilst at the same time encouraging different means of transport and such ;)

social control and all that jazz

Meanwhile generating MORE low-income families as businesses are forced to make cutbacks to be able to afford fuel, which is now more expensive because the costs are transferred to the consumer to pay for the higher taxes.

its worth it if it stabilizes the job market through stabilizing oil price increases (not that transport is a particularly large employer :confused:)

So... taxing the oil company, thus causing them to increase the price per gallon at the pump, thus driving inflation through the roof helps the American people by using this taxed money to subsidize experimental technology that may or may not produce a viable alternative in some unspecified future time?


How is that different than what we have? Except instead of the increased price of gas going toward research into renewable, sustainable fuels to make this country independent of foreign nations the money simply goes into the pockets of Big Oil.

Eight years ago then-candidate Bush was complaining because the Clinton administration had "allowed" a gallon of gas to reach nearly $1.60. We are now paying a national average of $4.00.

We have the increase price at the pump, we have inflation going through the roof. But, what we don't have is an answer, in the form of alternative fuels, because we have made no investment in that direction.

I think the idea is to reduce consumption thus stabilizing price whilst at the same time encouraging different means of transport and such ;)

social control and all that jazz



its worth it if it stabilizes the job market through stabilizing oil price increases (not that transport is a particularly large employer :confused:)

And you don't think that the price of heating and electricity increases along with oil. Companies have buildings that they need to pay utilities for too. Also, alot of businesses have company car that have to be refueled, therefore, higher gas= higher costs for them. You don't have to be in the transportation business to have energy costs.

How is that different than what we have? Except instead of the increased price of gas going toward research into renewable, sustainable fuels to make this country independent of foreign nations the money simply goes into the pockets of Big Oil.

Eight years ago then-candidate Bush was complaining because the Clinton administration had "allowed" a gallon of gas to reach nearly $1.60. We are now paying a national average of $4.00.

We have the increase price at the pump, we have inflation going through the roof. But, what we don't have is an answer, in the form of alternative fuels, because we have made no investment in that direction.

I think the point was that taxing the oil industry will only make prices rise, and that you're the one who will be paying for the alternative fuel research, not the oil company.

Besides it seems like alot of time and money has been spent on this research.

In more bad news for the GOP, the 14th annual "Attitudes in the American Workplace" survey, conducted by Zogby revealed:

52% of working Americans no longer believe the American Dream is attainable and 74% say it is not as attainable as it was eight years ago
45% of US workers are bitter and blame the political system for the deterioration of their economic circumstances
77% of US workers say they feel unrepresented by the political system on workplace issues such as healthcare, retirement, fuel prices and the economy
Maybe people are less optimistic(source?), it doesnt really help when you have every news station in the country saying how bad things are going to be. People's perception of reality isn't necessarily proportional to that reality. Besides, things have only gotten alot worse once the democrats took more congressional seats- if you want to link the two.

So... taxing the oil company, thus causing them to increase the price per gallon at the pump, thus driving inflation through the roof helps the American people by using this taxed money to subsidize experimental technology that may or may not produce a viable alternative in some unspecified future time?

Yes, and I'll explain why:

If giant megacorporations invest in renewable resources, they will do so at their pace, squeezing as much value out of existing technology as possible until such a time as they decide that it's more cost effective to speed up research and comercial production of other technologies.

On the other hand, if a couple dozen new companies start up, sinking funds into developing new technologies, they have a vested interest in getting viable commercial product to market as quickly as possible. even if only 1 in 4 of these new companies develops viable commercial product, that's half a dozen or more new companies marketing new products, researching improvements to make them more competitive with eachother and with existing technologies and putting innovation on the fast track. In addition, it'll force existing megacorporations to keep pace in order to avoid being left a generation back.

Removing unnecessary tax breaks from those that neither need nor deserve them and giving them to those those that do stimulates rapid innovation. That's something we need far more than a larger oil supply bottlenecked by oil industry's disinterest in increasing refining capability.

And you don't think that the price of heating and electricity increases along with oil.

considering I just mentioned subsidizing heating of low income families :confused:

Companies have buildings that they need to pay utilities for too.

utility bills for companies are traditionally rather low due to building design and
activity (hours open during day, heat produced by computers in offices etc)

Also, alot of businesses have company car that have to be refueled, therefore, higher gas= higher costs for them.

gas price isn't to the level where a corporation will collapse due to cost

You don't have to be in the transportation business to have energy costs.

however you will do if you you need to fret about it

How, in your mind, would the American people have benefited from higher taxation on the oil companies?

Well, for one, if we tax the shit out of the oil companies, they'll do two things:

1. Without profits to invest in new exploration, and building new refineries to keep up with the demand for refined gasoline, we'll continue to experience more demand than supply.

2. They'll raise the prices and pass the tax on to the consumers.

See? It's the Obama solution to the oil crisis.

considering I just mentioned subsidizing heating of low income families :confused:

how about everyone else?

utility bills for companies are traditionally rather low due to building design and
activity (hours open during day, heat produced by computers in offices etc)


and that works how in the summer time?


gas price isn't to the level where a corporation will collapse due to cost


doesnt have to crash or be close to crashing to start looking for places to cut costs... Besides, you apparently know that not a sigle corporation or business is close to collapse? Can i get some of your omnipotent powers plz? how about airlines?


however you will do if you you need to fret about it

Come again?

EDIT: I forgot that to ship things takes fuel, therefore everything will be more expensive, because every good needs to reach a destination, and its usually not the factory where it was produced. You seem to still be under the illusion that things arn't interconnected in an economy.

I think the idea is to reduce consumption thus stabilizing price whilst at the same time encouraging different means of transport and such ;)

social control and all that jazz

Well I agree there's a hefty hunk of social control in there, but the economy would be crushed in the process.


its worth it if it stabilizes the job market through stabilizing oil price increases (not that transport is a particularly large employer :confused:)

How would that stabilize the job market? With a high unemployment rate, perhaps, but then again, why are you assuming oil prices would stabilize? Imposing a punishing tax on the oil companies isn't going to magically prevent the price of a barrel of crude oil from increasing.

How is that different than what we have? Except instead of the increased price of gas going toward research into renewable, sustainable fuels to make this country independent of foreign nations the money simply goes into the pockets of Big Oil.

First of all, how is that money going toward research? It goes into the Government coffers. (Unless you refer to this trust fund they're talking about, which reminds me of a certain Social Security trust find that ceased to exist once the Government decided it needed that money.)

Second, what do you mean the pockets of "Big Oil?" That's nothing but a talking point. These oil companies aren't owned by some board of executives sitting around wiping their butts with hundred dollar bills. Those companies are owned by shareholders. If you have an investment retirement account, you probably own some stick in them yourself. I WANT Big Oil to make a good profit because it's part of a healthy economy, and gives them the investment capital they need to explore for more sources of oil as well as invest in more facilities for retrieving the oil and refining it.


Eight years ago then-candidate Bush was complaining because the Clinton administration had "allowed" a gallon of gas to reach nearly $1.60. We are now paying a national average of $4.00.


And?


We have the increase price at the pump, we have inflation going through the roof. But, what we don't have is an answer, in the form of alternative fuels, because we have made no investment in that direction.

It's not true to say we have no investment in alternatives. Hydrogen powered vehicles, natural gas running vehicles, electric cars exist.

The problem is there's no DEMAND for those vehicles. Think about it. If suddenly the market changed to a preference for electric cars, wouldn't it be in the interests of the car companies to start supplying them?

Yes, and I'll explain why:

If giant megacorporations invest in renewable resources, they will do so at their pace, squeezing as much value out of existing technology as possible until such a time as they decide that it's more cost effective to speed up research and comercial production of other technologies.

On the other hand, if a couple dozen new companies start up, sinking funds into developing new technologies, they have a vested interest in getting viable commercial product to market as quickly as possible. even if only 1 in 4 of these new companies develops viable commercial product, that's half a dozen or more new companies marketing new products, researching improvements to make them more competitive with eachother and with existing technologies and putting innovation on the fast track. In addition, it'll force existing megacorporations to keep pace in order to avoid being left a generation back.

Removing unnecessary tax breaks from those that neither need nor deserve them and giving them to those those that do stimulates rapid innovation. That's something we need far more than a larger oil supply bottlenecked by oil industry's disinterest in increasing refining capability.

Good points, but consider this:

We needn't rely on Exxon Mobil or BP to come up with alternative fuels. There already ARE other companies working on it. Why do we have to tax the oil companies in order to encourage innovation on the part of the small cap companies? Tax breaks for those companies that DO explore other alternatives is perfectly fine. This doesn't justify putting the screws to the big oil companies that will only result in a bigger hit to the economy in the form of even higher prices at the pump.

To all of you guys who are in favor of punishing the oil companies, why aren't you upset that the Government makes more profit from a gallon of gas than the oil company that produced it? Why aren't you insisting that the Government lower the gas tax first?

The top five oil companies made $120 BILLION in profits last year.

A recent study by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy looked at how oil companies spend their money.

The study found that the five big international oil companies - ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Chevron and ConocoPhillips - increased their spending on developing their existing oil fields by $15 billion and spending on finding new oil fields increased by $4 billion.

However, spending to buy back their own stock went from under $10 billion a year in 2003 to nearly $60 billion a year in 2006.

In other words, Big Oil is spending a relatively small amount of their profits on exploration, but are spending the majority of their funds buying back stock.

So, all that profit, combined with these stock buy backs must, at least, be a good thing for people who work for the Big Oil companies, right? Well, if you are a CEO, maybe (Exxon Mobile gave retiring CEO Lee Raymond a $400 million going away gift), but in 2006 Exxon Mobile underfunded its pension fund by $11.2 billion. Said a spokesman for Exxon Mobile, "That's not an investment we want to put more into at this point."

Right.

.

How would that stabilize the job market? With a high unemployment rate, perhaps, but then again, why are you assuming oil prices would stabilize? Imposing a punishing tax on the oil companies isn't going to magically prevent the price of a barrel of crude oil from increasing.

First of all, how is that money going toward research? It goes into the Government coffers. (Unless you refer to this trust fund they're talking about, which reminds me of a certain Social Security trust find that ceased to exist once the Government decided it needed that money.)

...I WANT Big Oil to make a good profit because it's part of a healthy economy, and gives them the investment capital they need to explore for more sources of oil as well as invest in more facilities for retrieving the oil and refining it.
....Tax breaks for those companies that DO explore other alternatives is perfectly fine. This doesn't justify putting the screws to the big oil companies that will only result in a bigger hit to the economy in the form of even higher prices at the pump.

To all of you guys who are in favor of punishing the oil companies, why aren't you upset that the Government makes more profit from a gallon of gas than the oil company that produced it? Why aren't you insisting that the Government lower the gas tax first?

Help me understand where you're going with this. You've made a good argument against levying an additional "windfall-profits tax" on oil companies, which I agree is a silly idea. That said, while the windfall-profits tax was in the bill rejected by the senate, that wasn't what was mentioned in the OP. What the OP mentioned was the other half of that bill: eliminating the special considerations given to oil companies back when oil was selling for a much lower price and oil companies argued that they needed help from the government in order to be competitive.

Come 2008, guess what? American oil companies are competitive. In fact, thanks to the oil bubble, oil companies not named BP are literally sitting on more cash than they know what to do with -- that's why they're socking away cash reserves, they didn't have enough projects lined up to funnel their funds into. Even though this bubble probably won't last more than a couple of years, this still leaves oil companies in a very good position financially.

Why, then, should the government still be giving them special considerations? Why should XOM and CVX pay lower taxes than LEH and HPQ? Unless you're arguing that corporations in general should pay lower taxes because you want to drown the government in a bathtub?

Help me understand where you're going with this. You've made a good argument against levying an additional "windfall-profits tax" on oil companies, which I agree is a silly idea. That said, while the windfall-profits tax was in the bill rejected by the senate, that wasn't what was mentioned in the OP. What the OP mentioned was the other half of that bill: eliminating the special considerations given to oil companies back when oil was selling for a much lower price and oil companies argued that they needed help from the government in order to be competitive.

Come 2008, guess what? American oil companies are competitive. In fact, thanks to the oil bubble, oil companies not named BP are literally sitting on more cash than they know what to do with -- that's why they're socking away cash reserves, they didn't have enough projects lined up to funnel their funds into. Even though this bubble probably won't last more than a couple of years, this still leaves oil companies in a very good position financially.

Why, then, should the government still be giving them special considerations? Why should XOM and CVX pay lower taxes than LEH and HPQ? Unless you're arguing that corporations in general should pay lower taxes because you want to drown the government in a bathtub?

Well my big problem with the way Government is handling the big oil companies is that even with current tax 'breaks' in place the Federal Government still makes 3-4 times more on a gallon of gas than the Company that produced it, and some State Governments get as much as 10 times as much.

Imagine if YOU were taxed at that rate?

What, precisely, is the Government doing to deserve to make so much more on fuel than the producer?

And frankly, socking away money is exactly what they should be doing in anticipation of what can happen next. It's a good thing.

Senate Republicans today blocked an attempt to take away billions of dollars in tax breaks for Big Oil.
When you hike taxes on corporations they pass that cost onto the consumer. And what about all the people who have money invested in "big oil"? A lot of people have their retirement funds tied to oil companies. Why? It's profitable and smart. I know that sticking it to the man sounds appealing but these companies are more than just the directors and when you try to hurt the company all you really end up doing is hurting the people who work for it, invest in it, and rely on it and what it provides.

Even more incredible, though, is that Republicans followed up that gift to Big Oil by blocking 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.
Wind will never be a suitable base load supply and solar is still a pipedream in its infancy. Hydro-electric dams ruin river ecosystems and flood a lot of land with those artificial lakes. Hybrid cars like the Prius have poor performance, little space, are expensive as all fuck, and just where do you think that huge ass battery is going to go? Electric cars generally don't have the range and performance of normal cars and there are no charging stations that'll swap batteries yet so to charge one up means plugging it in for 4 hours. Of all the "green" energy sources out there nuclear is the only one that makes sense right now and few hippies have ever wamred up to it.

Could these guys be any deeper into Big Oil's pockets?
Yes, they could be much deeper.

In April an Exxon Mobil exec testifying before Congress said that if the price of a barrel of oil were being driven solely by the market forces of supply and demand then it would be priced at $50-55. The current $135-140 barrel of oil price is not the product of increased Chinese and Indian demand, a temporary spike in summer driving, or the fuel inefficiency of American SUVs.

This is a speculative oil bubble, not unlike the recent housing bubble or the tech stock bubble of the '90s. Last Thursday the price of a barrel of oil shot up $11 dollars overnight. There was no sudden overnight demand for oil that would account for that price increase. And now the Russians, serving their own oil interests, are trying to drive this speculative market higher by predicting oil at $250 a barrel.
G-A-S-P! Speculation driving up prices, who knew?

Pretty simple, really: The higher taxes on the oil companies can pay for the tax breaks on renewable energy companies.

Silly, isn't it?
Very silly. Wind sucks and will never deliver so further investment in it makes about as much sense as corn ethanol subsidies. same goes for a lot of renewables. Renewable is just something that sounds nice, the true costs of many of those energy sources are greater than you think and with some no amount of engineering will ever solve their greatest flaws. There is no clean energy, even the supposedly clean stuff has an impact. Windmills kill birds, dams wreck rivers, solar takes up a cockwad of space, etc.

Taxing the oil companies in an attempt to punish them will only hurt the consumers and distort the market.

Senate Republicans today blocked an attempt to take away billions of dollars in tax breaks for Big Oil. Even more incredible, though, is that Republicans followed up that gift to Big Oil by blocking 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.

Could these guys be any deeper into Big Oil's pockets?

In April an Exxon Mobil exec testifying before Congress said that if the price of a barrel of oil were being driven solely by the market forces of supply and demand then it would be priced at $50-55. The current $135-140 barrel of oil price is not the product of increased Chinese and Indian demand, a temporary spike in summer driving, or the fuel inefficiency of American SUVs.

This is a speculative oil bubble, not unlike the recent housing bubble or the tech stock bubble of the '90s. Last Thursday the price of a barrel of oil shot up $11 dollars overnight. There was no sudden overnight demand for oil that would account for that price increase. And now the Russians, serving their own oil interests, are trying to drive this speculative market higher by predicting oil at $250 a barrel.

In more bad news for the GOP, the 14th annual "Attitudes in the American Workplace" survey, conducted by Zogby revealed:


52% of working Americans no longer believe the American Dream is attainable and 74% say it is not as attainable as it was eight years ago
45% of US workers are bitter and blame the political system for the deterioration of their economic circumstances
77% of US workers say they feel unrepresented by the political system on workplace issues such as healthcare, retirement, fuel prices and the economy

As Clinton campaign strategist James Carville pointed out in the 1992 presidential campaign, "It's the economy, stupid." Short of a direct military threat to the country, economics trumps all other things in national elections.

"Big Oil"? Which turn of the century are you residing in?

When you hike taxes on corporations they pass that cost onto the consumer.
<snip>
Taxing the oil companies in an attempt to punish them will only hurt the consumers and distort the market.

You said it way better than I did.

"Big Oil"? Which turn of the century are you residing in?

Talking points never get old.

Last year the top five oil companies - ExxonMobil, British Petroleum, Shell, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron – post record profits of $123 BILLION. Exxon Mobile alone made $40 BILLION in profit. All this was before oil hit nearly $140 a barrel and U.S. gas reached $4.00 a gallon.

What did Exxon do with that windfall? Invest it in new sources of energy? Use it to explore for new oil? Pay their workers pension fund?

No, they bought back more of their own stock. Exxon spent its profits on:


Repurchasing $31.8 billion worth of stock
Distributing $7.6 billion in dividends to shareholders
Increasing compensation for its top five executives to $76 million, a 170% increase since 2001.
Financing a sophisticated advertising campaign, designed to distract consumers and deflect attention from high gas prices. Specifically, it helped to finance full page ads in USA Today, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post and several other major daily newspapers that seek to show that the oil companies with $123 billion in combined annual profits really are not that rich. Advertising executives estimate that this public relations campaign costs in the neighborhood of $100 million (apparently it has worked with a small segment of the population, judging from some of the passionate defenses of Big Oil I've been reading here).
Invested roughly $10 million in renewable energy alternatives.


The top five CEO executives made almost as much money in one year as Exxon spent in developing renewable energy.

As if that weren't enough, in 2006 Exxon UNDERFUNDED it workers pension fund by $11.2 billion. So, its executives are getting rich off crippling gas prices, but Exxon's workers don't share in this windfall.

Meanwhile, the Senate Republicans block a repeal of $18.5 billion in tax breaks that the major oil companies receive over the next 10 years. Senate Democrats wanted to redirect these incentives to companies producing energy from renewable sources.

"Big Oil"? Which turn of the century are you residing in?

See above.

Last year the top five oil companies - ExxonMobil, British Petroleum, Shell, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron – post record profits of $123 BILLION. Exxon Mobile alone made $40 BILLION in profit. All this was before oil hit nearly $140 a barrel and U.S. gas reached $4.00 a gallon.

And do you know who gets that $140 per barrel?


What did Exxon do with that windfall? Invest it in new sources of energy? Use it to explore for new oil? Pay their workers pension fund?

No, they bought back more of their own stock. Exxon spent its profits on:


Good. Let's see:



Repurchasing $31.8 billion worth of stock


How is this bad?


Distributing $7.6 billion in dividends to shareholders


Shareholders = regular people like you and me.


Increasing compensation for its top five executives to $76 million, a 170% increase since 2001.


Compared to the 40 billion you said they made, this is hardly significant.


Financing a sophisticated advertising campaign, designed to distract consumers and deflect attention from high gas prices. Specifically, it helped to finance full page ads in USA Today, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post and several other major daily newspapers that seek to show that the oil companies with $123 billion in combined annual profits really are not that rich. Advertising executives estimate that this public relations campaign costs in the neighborhood of $100 million.


Understandable, considering they have to deal with people like you who just want to "stick it to the man" without really knowing what that entails.


Invested roughly $10 million in renewable energy alternatives.


Which is $10 million more than they have to. Why do you expect Exxon to invest in its own competition? Do you expect MacDonald's to sink money into Italian food?


The top five CEO executives made almost as much money in one year as Exxon spent in developing renewable energy.


So?


As if that weren't enough, in 2006 Exxon UNDERFUNDED it workers pension fund by $11.2 billion. So, its executives are getting rich off crippling gas prices, but Exxon's workers don't share in this windfall.


This, if true is an item that needs fixing, but hardly something that additional taxation of teh company would fix.


Meanwhile, the Senate Republicans block a repeal of $18.5 billion in tax breaks that the major oil companies receive over the next 10 years. Senate Democrats wanted to redirect these incentives to companies producing energy from renewable sources.


Read: Redistribution of wealth

You are correct, New Bret, that oil companies cannot be expected to fund research into their own competition, which is why the U.S. government has to do this through money collected from the profits these companies are making off consumers paying $4.00 a gallon for gas.

It is not like there aren't successful precedents for the U.S. government stepping in where private industry lacked the resources in our past. A short list of successful ventures includes:


Funding of the transcontinental railroad and settlement of the West
Creation of the interstate highway system
Wiring the nation's telephone infrastructure
Putting a man on the moon and developing the best space program on the planet
Creation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Funding the human genome project
Developing the very Internet we are using right now


How is taking $18.5 billion in tax breaks from the oil companies and giving them to companies involved in research toward renewable energy sources any more of a redistribution of wealth than giving the original tax breaks to the oil companies was in the first place? That $18.5 billion we gave them in tax breaks had to be made up by somebody. Who do you think that was?

Well, for one, if we tax the shit out of the oil companies, they'll do two things:

1. Without profits to invest in new exploration, and building new refineries to keep up with the demand for refined gasoline, we'll continue to experience more demand than supply.

Building new refineries is something they should have done earlier than now. Instead they allowed themselves to bloat, while not thinking about how this policy would help the public. Forgive me if I'm not crying for an industry that has not done anything to help consumers, and in turn help themselves to produce more product. Yet, our tax dollars are still going to subsidize this industry. Can you explain why a company making 8$ billion a quarter or more needs our tax dollars to help them? We give all this money away to these giant corporations and cry when someone tries to give money to families in need. In a country when we can give billions to war and record energy profits, and look down on working men and women who need help to put food on the table and get to work, where are our priorities? $40 billion a year in profits is NOT being reintroduced to the system as much as the CEO's of these companies want you to believe.

2. They'll raise the prices and pass the tax on to the consumers.

See? It's the Obama solution to the oil crisis.

So a company that is making crazy amounts of money, not reinvesting it in the industry like they say they are, is Obama's problem? This is America, and the world's problem. Allowing the market to be manipulated by oil companies and speculators is producing the type of inflation we are seeing now.

The oil companies deserve to start losing profits. Would serve them right for screwing us over constantly. The 4.00 gas is artifically inflated by them. They can lower it if they wanted too, they just want to keep the myth going.

If we take away any chances of them getting that extra $$$$. Maybe they will stop being dicks.

There I said it.

I'm ****ing fed up with this country being a corporate whorehouse where policitions will suck off CEOs if they paid them.

I'm sick of those who didn't do a single bit of work in their lives living rich and getting tax breaks while the people who actually WORK are suffering.

How is taking $18.5 billion in tax breaks from the oil companies and giving them to companies involved in research toward renewable energy sources any more of a redistribution of wealth than giving the original tax breaks to the oil companies was in the first place? That $18.5 billion we gave them in tax breaks had to be made up by somebody. Who do you think that was?

This. ^

Well, for one, if we tax the shit out of the oil companies, they'll do two things:

1. Without profits to invest in new exploration, and building new refineries to keep up with the demand for refined gasoline, we'll continue to experience more demand than supply.

Part of the problem is that they are NOT investing in new exploration or building new refineries. According to a study of the Big Five oil companies conducted by the non-partisan James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, of the $123 billion Big Oil made in profits last year only $15 billion was spent on developing their existing oil fields and a mere $4 billion was spent on finding new oil fields.

Yet they spent $50 billion in buying back their own stock.

What is best for the executives at Exxon Mobil is not necessarily best for America.

Part of the problem is that they are NOT investing in new exploration or building new refineries. According to a study of the Big Five oil companies conducted by the non-partisan James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, of the $123 billion Big Oil made in profits last year only $15 billion was spent on developing their existing oil fields and a mere $4 billion was spent on finding new oil fields.

Yet they spent $50 billion in buying back their own stock.

What is best for the executives at Exxon Mobil is not necessarily best for America.
Further more why the hell would they build MORE Refineries?

More refineries=More supply= Lower price.

Hello you really think the Oil companies WANT new Refineries?

Why would someone build something that costs money and would ultimately result in them having LESS profits?

A: Unless the Government makes them. Wait that's evil Socialism, nevermind.

Further more why the hell would they build MORE Refineries?

More refineries=More supply= Lower price.

Hello you really think the Oil companies WANT new Refineries?

Why would someone build something that costs money and would ultimately result in them having LESS profits?

Because that's why they were given the tax breaks in the first place. So they would reinvest the saved money into increasing supply.

*tries to keep a straight face*

When you hike taxes on corporations they pass that cost onto the consumer. And what about all the people who have money invested in "big oil"? A lot of people have their retirement funds tied to oil companies. Why? It's profitable and smart. I know that sticking it to the man sounds appealing but these companies are more than just the directors and when you try to hurt the company all you really end up doing is hurting the people who work for it, invest in it, and rely on it and what it provides.

Which is exactly what we want to do. We want to discourage people from driving and polluting the air by making it too expensive for them to drive.

The oil companies deserve to start losing profits. Would serve them right for screwing us over constantly. The 4.00 gas is artifically inflated by them. They can lower it if they wanted too, they just want to keep the myth going.

If we take away any chances of them getting that extra $$$$. Maybe they will stop being dicks.

There I said it.

I'm ****ing fed up with this country being a corporate whorehouse where policitions will suck off CEOs if they paid them.

I'm sick of those who didn't do a single bit of work in their lives living rich and getting tax breaks while the people who actually WORK are suffering.

I really, really wish people understood what they were talking about; according to a news article I recently read, something like an average of fifteen percent of the price of gas is put to taxes (federal and state), while an average of four percent is kept by the oil company for profit.

Also, consider, oil companies are taxed 40% of the profits they gain from oil production, and corporate tax is 35% of income...

Another important point: American industry is built on oil. Without it, we wouldn't have plastic OR an economy. We NEED oil, for far more than gas.

All of these facts can be corroborated by a World Almanac... far more reliable than any internet site I might come up with, I should think.

Because that's why they were given the tax breaks in the first place. So they would reinvest the saved money into increasing supply.

*tries to keep a straight face*
Really... Isn't that nice...
*Is also trying to keep a straight face.*

Is defending the profits of Big Oil when gas is $4.00 a gallon in the U.S. really a winning strategy for the Republicans?

The title of the thread is, "It's (still) the economy, stupid," and as far as I can tell James Carville is still right on that one.

its worth it if it stabilizes the job market through stabilizing oil price increases (not that transport is a particularly large employer :confused:)
The price of fuel affects the cost of everything transported by lorry ;)

Is defending the profits of Big Oil when gas is $4.00 a gallon in the U.S. really a winning strategy for the Republicans?
It's $11 per gallon here. Seriously, you guys are getting off lightly.

I really, really wish people understood what they were talking about; according to a news article I recently read, something like an average of fifteen percent of the price of gas is put to taxes (federal and state), while an average of four percent is kept by the oil company for profit. So is the government getting more money from the gas prices than the oil companies? Good, help ruin the 'Bankrupt the government strategy."


Also, consider, oil companies are taxed 40% of the profits they gain from oil production, and corporate tax is 35% of income... Yes and because of that they are living in the streets and gutters and are crowding the homeless shelters... Oh wait... And again I'm not seeing much of that money in the government.


Another important point: American industry is built on oil. Without it, we wouldn't have plastic OR an economy. We NEED oil, for far more than gas. A crack addict needs his fix, does it mean it's good?


All of these facts can be corroborated by a World Almanac... far more reliable than any internet site I might come up with, I should think.
Yet you list a 'random news article' as your evidence...

I really, really wish people understood what they were talking about; according to a news article I recently read, something like an average of fifteen percent of the price of gas is put to taxes (federal and state), while an average of four percent is kept by the oil company for profit.

Also, consider, oil companies are taxed 40% of the profits they gain from oil production, and corporate tax is 35% of income...


Part of $123 billion in profit the Big Five oil companies made last year has gone toward financing a sophisticated advertising campaign, designed to distract consumers and deflect attention from high gas prices. Specifically, it helped to finance full page ads in USA Today, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post and several other major daily newspapers that seek to show that the oil companies with $123 billion in combined annual profits really are not that rich.

Those would be their main talking points you are reciting.

It's $11 per gallon here. Seriously, you guys are getting off lightly.

It is $8.20 a gallon in France. How come you Brits pay more than the rest of Europe for everything? It can't cost that much to ship goods across the Channel.

It is $8.20 a gallon in France. How come you Brits pay more than the rest of Europe for everything? It can't cost that much to ship goods across the Channel.
High duties.

Well my big problem with the way Government is handling the big oil companies is that even with current tax 'breaks' in place the Federal Government still makes 3-4 times more on a gallon of gas than the Company that produced it, and some State Governments get as much as 10 times as much.

Imagine if YOU were taxed at that rate?

What, precisely, is the Government doing to deserve to make so much more on fuel than the producer?

And frankly, socking away money is exactly what they should be doing in anticipation of what can happen next. It's a good thing.

OK, so my hunch was correct. You do want to bring our entire system of taxation into question, you've just chosen a very curious issue to start with. I have neither the energy nor the inclination to argue over every service that every level of government provides, and whether we pay them too much for those services, and whether they should be in the business of providing any services at all, etc. etc. That's a much bigger question than that posed by the OP.

I'm asking a much simpler question: why do XOM, CVX, Conoco et al. deserve to get taxed at a lower rate than another large company? If you're going to bring up the issue of multiple levels of taxation, that's true for every single company that produces wholesale & retail goods; for that matter, it's true of every single citizen, as all of us pay multiple taxes, usually income and sales. Gasoline perhaps gets taxed more than other commodities as many governments use the gas tax as a primary method of funding roadworks, which should instead be funded by what, taxes on coal?

To pick on the biggest of the bigs, XOM is, primarily, an oil drilling and exploration company. Its refineries, shipping, and other operations account for less than a third of its revenue. So your argument focusing on the taxing of gasoline is beside the point. XOM lives and dies by the price of crude oil, which as you know is many steps and usually several companies away from gasoline. Therefore, XOM is doing fantastically well right now. Good for them. I fail to see why the Federal government (which is running a deficit) should continue to give special consideration to a company that's doing fantastically well.

I also wasn't sneering at American oil companies' buildup of cash reserves. That's probably what you or I would be doing if we suddenly had a big pile of money fall on our heads. They have a right to do what they want with their money. But your previous post was defending XOM's & others' special tax considerations on the basis that it would be more productive for the economy, and that's precisely not what's happening. "Cash Under the Mattress" is the very definition of unproductive.

If a corporation cannot compete without receiving tax breaks from the government (read, getting special dispensation), then they deserve to die. Remove the tax breaks. Let the market be free. If they go out of business, it's their fault.
Not with the global economy in the state it's in tbqh.

If a corporation cannot compete without receiving tax breaks from the government (read, getting special dispensation), then they deserve to die. Remove the tax breaks. Let the market be free. If they go out of business, it's their fault.

Not with the global economy in the state it's in tbqh.

Hey, if the people who argue for a free market start arguing for corporations getting bailed out by the government, I'm going to use their arguments against them.

If a corporation cannot compete without receiving tax breaks from the government (read, getting special dispensation), then they deserve to die. Remove the tax breaks. Let the market be free. If they go out of business, it's their fault.
Unfortunately, here in America we have decided that socialism does indeed work, but only for corporations. According to the Cato institute the U.S. gave $92 billion to such needy companies as Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, and General Electric.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8230

Unfortunately, here in America we have decided that socialism does indeed work, but only for corporations. According to the Cato institute the U.S. gave $92 billion to such needy companies as Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, and General Electric.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8230

To sum it up.

Government giving money to the poor to help them= Evil Socialism.

Government giving money to bail Corporations to help them= The "American Way".

Unfortunately, here in America we have decided that socialism does indeed work, but only for corporations. According to the Cato institute the U.S. gave $92 billion to such needy companies as Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, and General Electric.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8230

At the least GE and Boeing havn't been doing well, I'm not sure about the others, but GE has recently been spinning of companies faster than Africans get AIDS due to the fact that they were so diversified and several portions of their operations were losing them lots of money. I happened to interview for an internship at one (momentive performance materials see momentive.com).

Not that I particularly like the idea of "helping" companies, unless there is unfair competition from abroad due to their subsidies or tariffs.

In April an Exxon Mobil exec testifying before Congress said that if the price of a barrel of oil were being driven solely by the market forces of supply and demand then it would be priced at $50-55. The current $135-140 barrel of oil price is not the product of increased Chinese and Indian demand, a temporary spike in summer driving, or the fuel inefficiency of American SUVs.



hey lets play a game. lets return the dollar to the year 2000 level.
140 dollars a barrel becomes 70 dollars a barrel.
about 15 to 20 dollars of the price increase has been the demand of the China and India. The rest has been the declining value of the dollar. Stabilize the dollar revalue the dollar and we will see oil prices much closer to reasonable levels.

Yet you list a 'random news article' as your evidence...

I figured citing the Limbaugh Letter would simply bring criticism... Guess I overestimated you guys.

Part of $123 billion in profit the Big Five oil companies made last year has gone toward financing a sophisticated advertising campaign, designed to distract consumers and deflect attention from high gas prices. Specifically, it helped to finance full page ads in USA Today, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post and several other major daily newspapers that seek to show that the oil companies with $123 billion in combined annual profits really are not that rich.

Those would be their main talking points you are reciting.
Because I live in GERMANY, and have little access to popular American media other than the Stars and Stripes (an admittedly right wing publication...) I will merely state that I have NO idea what ads you are talking about. Honestly, the only media I get is from message boards and the occasional "Hey look at this article!" from my boyfriend.

Now I ought to climb back under my libertarian rock of denial, but I like this thread.

hey lets play a game. lets return the dollar to the year 2000 level.
140 dollars a barrel becomes 70 dollars a barrel.
about 15 to 20 dollars of the price increase has been the demand of the China and India. The rest has been the declining value of the dollar. Stabilize the dollar revalue the dollar and we will see oil prices much closer to reasonable levels.

Well, if we turned the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge back into salable land... WOO, cheap oil! And I mostly put the existence of expensive oil down to the oil-euro. Before 2000, everything was about the oil-dollar, now, it's the oil-euro! That simplifies a lot of modern global architecture, and belittles China's role in the overall, but still. With the amalgamation of the European economies, (save Britain, who is smart and only pretend EU,) the euro has become far more powerful than the dollar, which can cause an increase in import costs.

European gas, as far as I can tell, has remained far more stable in price to American.

In every election, except one, if the president's approval rating has been below 50% in June his party has lost the White House. The one exception was Harry Truman's come-from-behind win over Dewey.

George W. Bush's approval ratings are below 30%. He reached the highest disapproval rating (71%) of any president in history. Americans vote their pocket books and because of that the GOP is going to take a pounding this election year.

Oh boy...I smell a party hack.

Oh boy...I smell a party hack.
That was uncalled for. I'm not the one stumping for a candidate in my signature.

Profit margins for oil companies aren't particularly high. We should go after the real bad actors in the profit gouging department, like google.

You are correct, New Bret, that oil companies cannot be expected to fund research into their own competition, which is why the U.S. government has to do this through money collected from the profits these companies are making off consumers paying $4.00 a gallon for gas.


Why do you insist that money MUST come from oil companies? They make something like 4% profit, far lower than the standard profit margin.


It is not like there aren't successful precedents for the U.S. government stepping in where private industry lacked the resources in our past. A short list of successful ventures includes:


Funding of the transcontinental railroad and settlement of the West
Creation of the interstate highway system
Wiring the nation's telephone infrastructure
Putting a man on the moon and developing the best space program on the planet
Creation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Funding the human genome project
Developing the very Internet we are using right now



For starters, that's a list of expansions into new applications that didn't have to come from taxes from some other corporation. Second, most of those are based on technology developed in the private sector.


How is taking $18.5 billion in tax breaks from the oil companies and giving them to companies involved in research toward renewable energy sources any more of a redistribution of wealth than giving the original tax breaks to the oil companies was in the first place? That $18.5 billion we gave them in tax breaks had to be made up by somebody. Who do you think that was?

Why does it have to be made up by anybody? Why this mentality that the Government is entitled to all this money?

Further more why the hell would they build MORE Refineries?

More refineries=More supply= Lower price.

Hello you really think the Oil companies WANT new Refineries?

Why would someone build something that costs money and would ultimately result in them having LESS profits?

A: Unless the Government makes them. Wait that's evil Socialism, nevermind.

Actually, more refineries would mean less crude that would have to be shipped outside the country to be refined, which incurs additional cost. If we had more refining capacity here in the US, the price would go down but profit margins would go up.

OK, so my hunch was correct. You do want to bring our entire system of taxation into question, you've just chosen a very curious issue to start with. I have neither the energy nor the inclination to argue over every service that every level of government provides, and whether we pay them too much for those services, and whether they should be in the business of providing any services at all, etc. etc. That's a much bigger question than that posed by the OP.

I'm asking a much simpler question: why do XOM, CVX, Conoco et al. deserve to get taxed at a lower rate than another large company? If you're going to bring up the issue of multiple levels of taxation, that's true for every single company that produces wholesale & retail goods; for that matter, it's true of every single citizen, as all of us pay multiple taxes, usually income and sales. Gasoline perhaps gets taxed more than other commodities as many governments use the gas tax as a primary method of funding roadworks, which should instead be funded by what, taxes on coal?


Why do they deserve to be taxed higher than any other company?

The fact is, right now Oil Companies pay a HIGHER percentage of taxes than other companies. They're taxed not only by normal corporate taxes but also specific taxes on the product. Does Microsoft incur additional taxation on software because of its huge sales volume? So why should Exxon/Mobil?


To pick on the biggest of the bigs, XOM is, primarily, an oil drilling and exploration company. Its refineries, shipping, and other operations account for less than a third of its revenue. So your argument focusing on the taxing of gasoline is beside the point. XOM lives and dies by the price of crude oil, which as you know is many steps and usually several companies away from gasoline. Therefore, XOM is doing fantastically well right now. Good for them. I fail to see why the Federal government (which is running a deficit) should continue to give special consideration to a company that's doing fantastically well.


Like I said above, they're overtaxed as it is. Second, As was stated by someone else, our whole economy is supported by oil. That's the backbone of the American economy. It NEEDS to be healthy. We need to keep it that way or everything else goes to crap. Fair? I don't know, but that's how it is.


I also wasn't sneering at American oil companies' buildup of cash reserves. That's probably what you or I would be doing if we suddenly had a big pile of money fall on our heads. They have a right to do what they want with their money. But your previous post was defending XOM's & others' special tax considerations on the basis that it would be more productive for the economy, and that's precisely not what's happening. "Cash Under the Mattress" is the very definition of unproductive.

The reason I said it's a good thing that they're squirreling it away is because I have a feeling with the political landscape being as it is, and the hostility being whipped up against Oil Companies by politicians spewing talking points to demonize "Big Oil" as the common enemy, they may well need to use some of that cash to stay in business.

Look, I don't mean to offend anybody but there's a lot of talking points being tossed around here. The average person hasn't the slightest clue how the economics of these things work and there are politicians who are using that ignorance to try to get themselves elected. They promise to "punish Big Oil." For what? Exxon has no more control over the price of oil than you or I do. The market determines the price through means more complex than can be reasonably described here.

Do the oil companies make a shitload of money? Yes. Is that a good thing? yes. But the fact is nobody really cares about that as long as the product is cheap. Everybody was perfectly happy with Exxon/Mobil making record profits as long as the price for gas at the pump was stable.

But now, the US dollar is falling in value, instability and War in the Middle East (along with OPEC greed), and Government overtaxation are all driving the price for gas to record highs and our reaction? To form a mob, grab a bunch of pitchforks and torches and storm the castle. What the hell for?

Oil companies make record profits because they're moving record volume. Never before has the demand for fuel been so high (and two wars aren't helping). If they made 4 cents on the gallon in 1980 and are still making 4 cents on the gallon now, then OF COURSE their profits will be higher in terms of dollars, but in terms of real value, who knows? A dollar was worth a lot more in 1980 than it is now so in terms of actual profit it may well be lower.

You REALLY want a solution to high gas prices that doesn't involve emotion-driven corporate punishment measures that would only hurt us all? Here's what you do:

1)Repeal federal and state gas taxes.
2)Remove Federal restrictions on oil exploration on US land and offshore
3)Remove Federal restrictions on construction of new refineries
4)Encourage private investment in alternate fuel vehicles
5)Put pressure on US companies to sell oil to domestic consumers FIRST and export the surplus. (This is how it's done in Saudi Arabia, where they pay pennies for a gallon of gasoline. The way it's done here, the price paid for domestic oil is no different than foreign.)

Be constructive. Educate yourself. Stop listening to politicians who will say whatever it takes to play on your emotions and get elected.

Well, if we turned the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge back into salable land... WOO, cheap oil! And I mostly put the existence of expensive oil down to the oil-euro. Before 2000, everything was about the oil-dollar, now, it's the oil-euro! That simplifies a lot of modern global architecture, and belittles China's role in the overall, but still. With the amalgamation of the European economies, (save Britain, who is smart and only pretend EU,) the euro has become far more powerful than the dollar, which can cause an increase in import costs.

European gas, as far as I can tell, has remained far more stable in price to American.

really?? the only one that switch to Euro was Iran and US doesn't trade with them anyways.

European gas is more stable because the currency is more stable. The dollar keeps declining which means investors tend flee to the euro or commodities (oil and gold are popular). this raises both the price of the Euro and of Oil.

As I said before Raise interest rates stabilize the dollar, then work on paying down the debt.

Further more why the hell would they build MORE Refineries?

More refineries=More supply= Lower price.

Hello you really think the Oil companies WANT new Refineries?

Why would someone build something that costs money and would ultimately result in them having LESS profits?

A: Unless the Government makes them. Wait that's evil Socialism, nevermind.

The oil companies receive tax dollars for new technology and exploration. So not only are they not spending their profits on improvements, they also are not spending the taxes we pay them.

As for companies wanting new refineries... The profit margin for a gallon of gas is not incredibly high. What makes it high is the demand vs. supply that they have. So, more supply may lower prices, but do you think they are going to change the model of their profit margins? If my product price is too high then my consumers will 1. Drive less thereby decreasing profits 2. Drive more fuel efficient vehicles thereby decreasing profits 3. Fine alternative ways to fuel their vehicles thereby reducing profits. If you profit margin is 12 cents on the gallon (number chose just for kicks) and people drive less...your profits will be lower. Having lower oil prices gives oil companies more volume and better profit margins. With countries in Asia increasing their demand, oil companies have nothing to worry about when it comes to demand. It's pure greed and nothing else.

This is really a question that should be handled by economists, we shouldn't get bogged down by ideology. Whatever decision you chose may have unforeseeable effects that might fuck over the economy.

The oil companies receive tax dollars for new technology and exploration. So not only are they not spending their profits on improvements, they also are not spending the taxes we pay them.

As for companies wanting new refineries... The profit margin for a gallon of gas is not incredibly high. What makes it high is the demand vs. supply that they have. So, more supply may lower prices, but do you think they are going to change the model of their profit margins? If my product price is too high then my consumers will 1. Drive less thereby decreasing profits 2. Drive more fuel efficient vehicles thereby decreasing profits 3. Fine alternative ways to fuel their vehicles thereby reducing profits. If you profit margin is 12 cents on the gallon (number chose just for kicks) and people drive less...your profits will be lower. Having lower oil prices gives oil companies more volume and better profit margins. With countries in Asia increasing their demand, oil companies have nothing to worry about when it comes to demand. It's pure greed and nothing else.

EXACTLY! That's why lower prices would be in Oil Companies' best interests... It would make us comfortable again and less motivates to phase them out. So if you REALLY hate Big Oil, then high prices can be a means to an end.

EXACTLY! That's why lower prices would be in Oil Companies' best interests... It would make us comfortable again and less motivates to phase them out. So if you REALLY hate Big Oil, then high prices can be a means to an end.
Just to reiterate, our petrol prices about three times as high as yours. No end to this 'big oil' pish whatsoever, everyone just feels a bit gutted when getting their tank refilled costs $160.

Two points:

1) The current $135-140 a barrel price of oil is NOT because of the weak dollar or increased demand by China and India. It is a speculation bubble, pure and simple. An Exxon Mobile exec, testifying before Congress in April, said that according to market forces of supply-and-demand the price of a barrel of oil should be in the $50-55 range.

2) It is the oil companies, not politicians, who are preying on American's economic ignorance through a $100 million advertising campaign (the talking points of which are showing up word for word in some of the posts here) trying to convince Americans that even though they made $123 BILLION in profit last year, they really aren't making any money at all. They are also obfuscating the fact that from that record setting windfall they only spent $15 billion developing existing oil fields and only $4 billion looking for new oil fields, while spending $50 billion buying back their own stock, further enriching their CEOs. All this while underfunding their own workers' pension funds (by $11.2 billion for Exxon).

EXACTLY! That's why lower prices would be in Oil Companies' best interests... It would make us comfortable again and less motivates to phase them out. So if you REALLY hate Big Oil, then high prices can be a means to an end.

I have no hate for...eh...Ok I have very little hate for most people/entities. I just don't think we should be giving our tax dollars to subsidize and industry that DOES NOT need it. It is also my opinion, amongst other things, that speculation on the NYMEX by people who are not end users is driving prices up. When oil prices go up $11 in a day (they recently did) what is the cause? There were no interruptions in service, and there wasn't a sudden rush overnight. Speculation is what drove that price, not supply and demand.

As for the argument that "people own stocks and bleh bleh bleh..." With the oil companies buying back huge amounts of their stock they increase their value and liquidate the value pushed to the customer. This only increases the value of the company, and decreases the power of the consumer to affect gas prices. The people who do not own stock, and cannot afford gas, are the ones who get totally screwed. Prices rise for all products made of petroleum such as: plastics, ointments, gasoline and it's distillants, groceries, etc. The end user is who suffers.

As for the argument that gas taxes are higher than profit margins...you actually get something for that tax. Roads, bridges, tunnels, turnpikes, etc. are funded by these taxes. Some of that money goes to administrative services as well, but that is necessary to get the job done. The idea of a gas tax holiday is just a gimmick meant for short term gratification. It also would underfund road projects, public transportation projects, etc. It's a shortsighted plan that will not help the root causes. I'm glad we can agree Neo Brit.

That was uncalled for. I'm not the one stumping for a candidate in my signature.

And your point is?

Just to reiterate, our petrol prices about three times as high as yours. No end to this 'big oil' pish whatsoever, everyone just feels a bit gutted when getting their tank refilled costs $160.

You definitely have our sympathies :(

I have no hate for...eh...Ok I have very little hate for most people/entities. I just don't think we should be giving our tax dollars to subsidize and industry that DOES NOT need it. It is also my opinion, amongst other things, that speculation on the NYMEX by people who are not end users is driving prices up. When oil prices go up $11 in a day (they recently did) what is the cause? There were no interruptions in service, and there wasn't a sudden rush overnight. Speculation is what drove that price, not supply and demand.

As for the argument that "people own stocks and bleh bleh bleh..." With the oil companies buying back huge amounts of their stock they increase their value and liquidate the value pushed to the customer. This only increases the value of the company, and decreases the power of the consumer to affect gas prices. The people who do not own stock, and cannot afford gas, are the ones who get totally screwed. Prices rise for all products made of petroleum such as: plastics, ointments, gasoline and it's distillants, groceries, etc. The end user is who suffers.

As for the argument that gas taxes are higher than profit margins...you actually get something for that tax. Roads, bridges, tunnels, turnpikes, etc. are funded by these taxes. Some of that money goes to administrative services as well, but that is necessary to get the job done. The idea of a gas tax holiday is just a gimmick meant for short term gratification. It also would underfund road projects, public transportation projects, etc. It's a shortsighted plan that will not help the root causes. I'm glad we can agree Neo Brit.

I think it all goes to show the issue is immensely complex and not solved by something as simple and as emotionally gratifying as boosting taxes on oil companies.

You definitely have our sympathies :(



I think it all goes to show the issue is immensely complex and not solved by something as simple and as emotionally gratifying as boosting taxes on oil companies.

I agree it is complex. This still does not explain why we need to subsidize and industry that is already making money hand over fist. Especially when this money should be going to R&D and it isn't. I'm not against corporate profits. I am against giving them money when they already have plenty. The execs are full of crap on this. They buy back stock options and profit off that. They then decide to retire and cash out these options. So $64 million and fully paid health benefits later, they walk out with a smile while the public is still getting whipped.

The thing I don't think you get is this: The bill wasn't about giving Big Oil (tm) more money, it was about not taking away more money. In a good economy, hell, in a FREE SOCIETY, taxes should be equal, regardless of what you produce. If corporations are taxed 35%, then all corporations should be taxed thirty-five percent. Not, "Gee, you're selling a commodity that is less profitable, so you only have to pay 30%, plus we'll give you grants; and you make a cheap, profitable commodity so you get to give us 40% of your profit, plus we'll fund media campaigns to sling mud across your good name!"

I already said I'm a libertarian, you probably see me as a big free-love, free-economy idealist, but expecting the increase of tariffs to DECREASE the cost of something is just silly.

Besides, didn't we commit acts of rebellion because of tariffs being increased on an import-restricted, widely used commodity? Not more than, say 230 years ago?

Which is exactly what we want to do. We want to discourage people from driving and polluting the air by making it too expensive for them to drive.
You know, I'm rarely speechless.
...
Who the fuck do you think you are? What gives you the right to tell everyone else to live spartan? How is forcing the poor to choose between food, shelter and the gas they need to get to work going to help them? I am so sick of you arrogant, unbelievably white middle-class kids (it doesn't matter how old you are, if you really believe this then you've got the mental maturity of a 6 year-old) telling everyone else how to live.

You know, I'm rarely speechless.
...
Who the fuck do you think you are? What gives you the right to tell everyone else to live spartan? How is forcing the poor to choose between food, shelter and the gas they need to get to work going to help them? I am so sick of you arrogant, unbelievably white middle-class kids (it doesn't matter how old you are, if you really believe this then you've got the mental maturity of a 6 year-old) telling everyone else how to live.

Most of the folks here on NS General believe that it's the function of government to tell you how to live your life, because they know so much more than everyone else, and if you're not living life they way they think you should, they'll fuck you over a tabletop until you give in and let them run your life.

If you are a success in life, their government will take your money and give it to the poor. You didn't need that money anyway, and the work you did is of equal value to the indigence that the government inculcates in everyone else.

A long list of what not to own (on pain of imprisonment and being accused of being anti-social) will follow.

You know, I'm rarely speechless.
...
Who the fuck do you think you are? What gives you the right to tell everyone else to live spartan? How is forcing the poor to choose between food, shelter and the gas they need to get to work going to help them? I am so sick of you arrogant, unbelievably white middle-class kids (it doesn't matter how old you are, if you really believe this then you've got the mental maturity of a 6 year-old) telling everyone else how to live.

But it isn't about how you live your life because pollution effects all of us.

And your point is?

Embarrassingly obvious to the less obtuse.

Embarrassingly obvious to the less obtuse.

In other words, you do not have a point. Ok moving on.

I agree it is complex. This still does not explain why we need to subsidize and industry that is already making money hand over fist. Especially when this money should be going to R&D and it isn't. I'm not against corporate profits. I am against giving them money when they already have plenty. The execs are full of crap on this. They buy back stock options and profit off that. They then decide to retire and cash out these options. So $64 million and fully paid health benefits later, they walk out with a smile while the public is still getting whipped.

To be honest, I see no need to subsidize them either, but that doesn't mean I want to see them punished by taxes, either.

You know, I'm rarely speechless.
...
Who the fuck do you think you are? What gives you the right to tell everyone else to live spartan? How is forcing the poor to choose between food, shelter and the gas they need to get to work going to help them? I am so sick of you arrogant, unbelievably white middle-class kids (it doesn't matter how old you are, if you really believe this then you've got the mental maturity of a 6 year-old) telling everyone else how to live.

It's a perfect example of why so many people favor big Government... OIn some level they want to use it to exercise social control to reshape the nation into their idea of a utopia, even if the rest of us have to be dragged kicking and screaming into it.

But it isn't about how you live your life because pollution effects all of us.

Problem: EVERYTHING we do affects everyone else. That's what an ecosystem is. We all share it. There are constructive ways to reduce pollution without harming people in the process. This way is more satisfying to those social control freaks because it also hurts 'Big Business' which they hate as well.

Problem: EVERYTHING we do affects everyone else. That's what an ecosystem is. We all share it. There are constructive ways to reduce pollution without harming people in the process. This way is more satisfying to those social control freaks because it also hurts 'Big Business' which they hate as well. everything we do does not effect everyone else. We are only talking about pollution. What exactly do you mean? If a person chooses to drive a hummer instead of a hybrid, he has a right to make that choice he just has to pay more $$$ for his gas because he is making a choice which is harmful to the rest of the population. If you chose to drive instead of taking the bus, same thing. I don't see it as any different from getting a fine for littering.

Which is exactly what we want to do. We want to discourage people from driving and polluting the air by making it too expensive for them to drive.
How the fuck are you going to move goods around, then?

Train? In the States? Didn't think so. Elaborate canal system? It's not Germany for chrissakes. Plane? Would just make things worse.

Obviously, the economy is doing so badly...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7450991.stm

wait...

We still haven't entered a recession - we haven't had two consecutive periods of negative GDP...

Aside from the mortgage crisis (which was brought about by essentially criminal negligence on the part of lenders), and the rise in oil prices (which is brought about by the fact that the world is running out of oil and can no longer produce to demand), the US economy is doing ok, considering all that is happenning.

Even with the slight rise in unemployment, it's still in the good range.

When I was a teenager, it was 9%. And that was considered bad. We're nowhere near that level.

How the fuck are you going to move goods around, then?

Train? In the States? Didn't think so. Elaborate canal system? It's not Germany for chrissakes. Plane? Would just make things worse.

for Chrisssake indeed. It would be soooo impossible to pay extra for fuel to transport things. :p

We still haven't entered a recession - we haven't had two consecutive periods of negative GDP...

The quarter ends this month, so we still don't know whether or not we are entering into a recession that won't actually be called one until September.


Aside from the mortgage crisis (which was brought about by essentially criminal negligence on the part of lenders), and the rise in oil prices (which is brought about by the fact that the world is running out of oil and can no longer produce to demand), the US economy is doing ok, considering all that is happenning.

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

Obviously, there's a lot of ranting about how bad the economy is.

Some people are getting hurt, but there's no such thing as zero risk.

It's nowhere near as bad as people say it is.

Obviously, there's a lot of ranting about how bad the economy is.

Some people are getting hurt, but there's no such thing as zero risk.

It's nowhere near as bad as people say it is.
Well, actually, I do think it is pretty bad for many people, but I agree with your general point that the American economy is still sound and I believe that by this time next year we will be coming out of a recession (which I think we are starting into at this point).

That will be good news for the next Democratic administration which, through no effort on its part, will come out looking like saviors of the economy. Such is the economic cycle.

To be honest, I see no need to subsidize them either, but that doesn't mean I want to see them punished by taxes, either.

There must be some middle ground. We should not subsidize the industry at all. If anything there needs to be more regulation (which I am usually against). The oil companies created the problem. By not investing in refineries and other infrastructure they manufactured a decreased supply. There is no way to deny that is we increased our refinery capacity, by as little and %25, we would not be getting gouged on prices. So for me I am twisted. Part of me says "free market economy" and understands P/L statements. The other part of me says, "you created this clusterf#ck now you fix it!" This is the problem though. Large corporations and their lobbyists own our elected officials.

It's like me burying nuclear waste in your back yard for 30 years...You get cancer and realize that the reason is the waste below your soil having leaked into the well. You come to me and say, "Um, you buried this stuff in what is now my back yard. This has given me cancer and I cannot afford the treatment. I'd like to avoid a lawsuit if we can so...I'd like to settle for only the amount of my medical bills." I respond, "That seems reasonable enough to me. Now go F yourself. Not only are we not going to pay for your bills, we're going to charge you to remove the waste and put in new fill." At this point you go... "are you motherFing serious? The government gave you superfund funding to clean it up and you chose not to. This all could have been avoided. "Well, instead of using the superfund money to clean up our mess we gave compensation to our C class employees (CEO CFO COO, etc.) We also used the money to purchase more stock options for ourselves and pay dividends to our stockholders. After this was reported in the news we fired our CEO. He got a meager package of $60 million in cash, and 30 million when he liquidated his stock options. We feel this arrangment is fair." You scream angrily "all that money!!!!!!!! All I needs is 250k to pay the medical bills" Company spokesman: I'm sorry, we just can't afford to pay you that much. We need to reinvest."

everything we do does not effect everyone else. We are only talking about pollution. What exactly do you mean? If a person chooses to drive a hummer instead of a hybrid, he has a right to make that choice he just has to pay more $$$ for his gas because he is making a choice which is harmful to the rest of the population. If you chose to drive instead of taking the bus, same thing. I don't see it as any different from getting a fine for littering.

You just blew a hole in your own argument, my friend.

There must be some middle ground. We should not subsidize the industry at all. If anything there needs to be more regulation (which I am usually against). The oil companies created the problem. By not investing in refineries and other infrastructure they manufactured a decreased supply. There is no way to deny that is we increased our refinery capacity, by as little and %25, we would not be getting gouged on prices. So for me I am twisted. Part of me says "free market economy" and understands P/L statements. The other part of me says, "you created this clusterf#ck now you fix it!" This is the problem though. Large corporations and their lobbyists own our elected officials.


Just remember, it's the Government that has prevented new refineries, not the initiative of the oil companies.



It's like me burying nuclear waste in your back yard for 30 years...You get cancer and realize that the reason is the waste below your soil having leaked into the well. You come to me and say, "Um, you buried this stuff in what is now my back yard. This has given me cancer and I cannot afford the treatment. I'd like to avoid a lawsuit if we can so...I'd like to settle for only the amount of my medical bills." I respond, "That seems reasonable enough to me. Now go F yourself. Not only are we not going to pay for your bills, we're going to charge you to remove the waste and put in new fill." At this point you go... "are you motherFing serious? The government gave you superfund funding to clean it up and you chose not to. This all could have been avoided. "Well, instead of using the superfund money to clean up our mess we gave compensation to our C class employees (CEO CFO COO, etc.) We also used the money to purchase more stock options for ourselves and pay dividends to our stockholders. After this was reported in the news we fired our CEO. He got a meager package of $60 million in cash, and 30 million when he liquidated his stock options. We feel this arrangment is fair." You scream angrily "all that money!!!!!!!! All I needs is 250k to pay the medical bills" Company spokesman: I'm sorry, we just can't afford to pay you that much. We need to reinvest."

Obviously if Government money has been given to these companies for specific purposes and they can't show that it was spent properly then there needs to be some action taken, but that's a separate issue from taxation.

Just remember, it's the Government that has prevented new refineries, not the initiative of the oil companies.

It is the market that prevents new refineries. There is currently no "shortage" of oil and it is not supply and demand that is driving up the price of a barrel of oil. We are in a speculation bubble.

As to production, we may have already peaked. According to an article from The Star (Malaysia):

The world’s oil industry has started to reach its peak production rate and every nation now needs to build a “crash mat” to cushion the fall, an expert warned yesterday.

Kjell Aleklett, physics professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University, said such a move was important as the world was now already in a phase of transition to an uncertain future with oil getting more difficult and costly to produce.


“New discoveries are getting much lower. We have climbed high on the ‘oil leader’ and yet we must descend one way or another,” he said in his keynote address at the 13th Asia Oil and Gas Conference 2008 here.

“It may be too late for a gentle descent, but there may still be time to build a thick crash mat to cushion the fall.”

http://www.peakoil.com/article39655.html

It is the market that prevents new refineries. There is currently no "shortage" of oil and it is not supply and demand that is driving up the price of a barrel of oil. We are in a speculation bubble.

Uh uh...that is why it is very very difficult for oil companies to actually build a refinery! If you expect me to believe this, then please prove that it is the market preventing the creation of new refineries.

It is the market that prevents new refineries. There is currently no "shortage" of oil and it is not supply and demand that is driving up the price of a barrel of oil. We are in a speculation bubble.


I won't deny that speculation plays a large role but basic economics tells us that process drop as demand drops or supply increases. We have a supply problem because the United States is under equipped with refining capacity for the demand for fuel.

And how can you say the market prevents new refineries? If anything, the market demands new ones be built. None are being built because of politics... most people don't want a new refinery built near their home town.


As to production, we may have already peaked. According to an article from The Star (Malaysia):

The world’s oil industry has started to reach its peak production rate and every nation now needs to build a “crash mat” to cushion the fall, an expert warned yesterday.

Kjell Aleklett, physics professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University, said such a move was important as the world was now already in a phase of transition to an uncertain future with oil getting more difficult and costly to produce.


“New discoveries are getting much lower. We have climbed high on the ‘oil leader’ and yet we must descend one way or another,” he said in his keynote address at the 13th Asia Oil and Gas Conference 2008 here.

“It may be too late for a gentle descent, but there may still be time to build a thick crash mat to cushion the fall.”

http://www.peakoil.com/article39655.html

We haven't peaked yet unless we make it happen artificially. The amount of natural crude under the Continental United States (North Central) alone is greater than the capacity of the oil fields under Saudi Arabia. It's a larger resource than anywhere else that we haven't even tapped yet, and that doesn't even include ANWAR or the offshore supplies we're not using.

The amount of natural crude under the Continental United States (North Central) alone is greater than the capacity of the oil fields under Saudi Arabia. It's a larger resource than anywhere else that we haven't even tapped yet, and that doesn't even include ANWAR or the offshore supplies we're not using.

The Democrats will never let us drill that, period. If only in the name of carbon reduction, they won't let us pull it out of the ground and use it.

The Democrats will never let us drill that, period. If only in the name of carbon reduction, they won't let us pull it out of the ground and use it.

That's true, which is one of the reasons they're pushing this 'punish Big Oil' agenda... to distract people from the reality of what's happening.

In April an Exxon Mobil exec testifying before Congress said that if the price of a barrel of oil were being driven solely by the market forces of supply and demand then it would be priced at $50-55. The current $135-140 barrel of oil price is not the product of increased Chinese and Indian demand, a temporary spike in summer driving, or the fuel inefficiency of American SUVs.

This is a speculative oil bubble, not unlike the recent housing bubble or the tech stock bubble of the '90s. Last Thursday the price of a barrel of oil shot up $11 dollars overnight. There was no sudden overnight demand for oil that would account for that price increase. And now the Russians, serving their own oil interests, are trying to drive this speculative market higher by predicting oil at $250 a barrel.
Speculators are demand. There's nothing nefarious about it.

That's true, which is one of the reasons they're pushing this 'punish Big Oil' agenda... to distract people from the reality of what's happening.

The problem being, that if the whole "war in Iraq" thing dies down after a Democrat is elected, and they keep restricting drilling for oil, and make oil production and refining in the US difficult, they'll be out on their asses wholesale on the next go-round.

The problem being, that if the whole "war in Iraq" thing dies down after a Democrat is elected, and they keep restricting drilling for oil, and make oil production and refining in the US difficult, they'll be out on their asses wholesale on the next go-round.
A democrat will not be elected.

This has been my position for about a year now. I said if the Democrats selected a polarising candidate like Clinton or Obama, they would lose. Again. And for the same reason (poor candidate selection).

A democrat will not be elected.

This has been my position for about a year now. I said if the Democrats selected a polarising candidate like Clinton or Obama, they would lose. Again. And for the same reason (poor candidate selection).

Obama is not as polarizing as Clinton is. This will be a close election though.

We haven't peaked yet unless we make it happen artificially. The amount of natural crude under the Continental United States (North Central) alone is greater than the capacity of the oil fields under Saudi Arabia. It's a larger resource than anywhere else that we haven't even tapped yet, and that doesn't even include ANWAR or the offshore supplies we're not using.
Yes, indeed, there is plenty of oil the world-around, however the least expensive oil is already being tapped. We are fast approaching the point where we will be tapping new oil reserves of the more expensive type, such as shale deposits, of which there is an estimated 2.8 trillion to 3.3 trillion barrels.

Of course this is why the world will never actually run out of oil. By the time we get to the point where we are forced to move to those more expensive sources the rising cost will also make alternative fuels relatively less costly. The result will be that we will move to those alternative energy sources long before we run out of oil.


The Democrats will never let us drill that, period. If only in the name of carbon reduction, they won't let us pull it out of the ground and use it.

Nor should they. The problem is NOT a lack of oil. The Saudis have already said they would increase supply if the refiners demanded it (i.e. if the free market called for more oil). The problem is oil itself. In the 19th century the industrial world, led by Britain an the United States, ran on steam. In the 20th century the industrial world, led by the U.S., ran on fossil fuel. In the 21st century the world will run on alternative, renewable fuels.

As an American I would like to see the United States leading the way, not bringing up the rear.

Yes, indeed, thereis plenty of oil the world-around, however the least expensive oil is already being tapped. We are fast approaching the point where we new oil reserves are of the more expensive type, such as shale deposits of which there is an estimated 2.8 trillion to 3.3 trillion barrels.

Of course this is why the world will never actually run out of oil. By the time we get to the point where we are forced to move to those more expensive sources the rising cost will also make alternative source relatively less costly. The result will be that we will move to those alternative energy sources long before we run out of oil.

Nor should they. The problem a lack of oil. The Saudis have already said they would increase supply if the refiners demanded it (i.e. if the free market called for more oil). The problem is oil itself. In the 19th century the industrial world, led by Britain an the United States, ran on steam. In the 20th century the industrial world, led by the U.S., ran on fossil fuel. In the 21st century the world will run on alternative, renewable fuels.

As an American I would like to see the United States leading the way, not bringing up the rear.

The advanced designs of fission reactor that burn 95% of the fuel (including most of the waste) were proven completely safe in experiments - and then immediately sat on by the Clinton Administration.

We could build those, and have a much longer (thousands of years) supply of fission power (as opposed to the current fission fuel cycle, which wastes 95% of the fuel, and results in a lot of radioactive waste).

If you need power on an industrial scale, wind farms aren't going to cut it, and unless you build an orbital solar station, solar won't cut it either for industrial power.

Which party is preventing nuclear power (including fusion power, which is completely different from fission) from even being researched?

I'm a liberal Democrat, Hotwife, but I'm not really interested in making this a Democrats vs. Republicans debate.

Neither party has been very responsible in looking to the long term future.

Neither party has been very responsible in looking to the long term future.

Something we agree on.

I'm a liberal Democrat, Hotwife, but I'm not really interested in making this a Democrats vs. Republicans debate.

Neither party has been very responsible in looking to the long term future.

The absolute first priority of the first Clinton term was to shut down the prototype for the integral fast breeder which had already passed unmanned safety tests (i.e., it shuts itself down even without computer or human aid), and burns almost all of its fuel.

They don't want to see it succeed at all. Period.

At least Republicans vote for it - even though big oil will be the one who benefits. Most of the nuclear fuel cycle in the US is owned by Exxon.

The absolute first priority of the first Clinton term was to shut down the prototype for the integral fast breeder which had already passed unmanned safety tests (i.e., it shuts itself down even without computer or human aid), and burns almost all of its fuel.

They don't want to see it succeed at all. Period.

At least Republicans vote for it - even though big oil will be the one who benefits. Most of the nuclear fuel cycle in the US is owned by Exxon.

Ok.

I'm a liberal Democrat, Hotwife, but I'm not really interested in making this a Democrats vs. Republicans debate.

Neither party has been very responsible in looking to the long term future.

You did start out by complaining about senate republicans blocking attempts to punish "big oil" for being profitable.

You did start out by complaining about senate republicans blocking attempts to punish "big oil" for being profitable.
Fair enough.

How are the Republicans going to run on the idea of drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge if their standard bearer, John McCain, is on record opposing it?

California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is campaigning for McCain, but his wife, Maria Shriver is campaigning for Obama. They have a campaign sign for each outside the governor's home.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/13/america/calif.php

I'm betting Arnold gets terminated on this one.