DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on June 10, 2008, 04:38:14 AM
-
IIRC, did I not hear wind that Oblather pledges as President, to impose windfall profit taxes on "big oil", in some twisted rationale that it would help rising gas costs. Please, an Oblather supporter, explain how that's supposed to work
Wasn't that tried before by the last worst president we ever had, Carter? Did it not have disastrous results? Did it not cause severe shortages in supply, with specific days you were allowed to take your car in for gas? Did it not actually raise gas prices, as "big oil" simply passed the added cost onto the consumer?
Apparently Oblather is hoping to pull in that "young demographic" that have no frellin clue how terrible a decision that was 1st go around. But we'll stick it to "big oil", won't we. More of that scintillating "judgement" on display, again
-
No one wants to defend that one. Interesting. Good judgement
-
Considering I think that the oil companies should be nationalized, I think that windfall taxes are a step in the right the direction.
10 billion dollars is 10 billion dollars. They held us hostage for it, let's get it back.
-
Now putting the irrelevent emotional tangent aside, how does such a tactic
A) reduce the cost of Gasoline?
B) increase the supply of Gasoline?
C) keep costs simply from being transferred to the consumer, by way of HIGHER gasoline prices??
-
Now putting the irrelevent emotional tangent aside, how does such a tactic
A) reduce the cost of Gasoline?
B) increase the supply of Gasoline?
C) keep costs simply from being transferred to the consumer, by way of HIGHER gasoline prices??
Whoever said that it does?
-
So, you have no problem with CarterII, and the disaster to this country economically, the last time it was tried. Will good, glad we have that on record. And to really chuck the economy into the abyss, make sure to add UHC
-
You don't get it back . The government gets it to do with as it pleases. Perhaps they can increase funding for studies about increasing the yield of Montana grown dental floss
-
So, you have no problem with CarterII, and the disaster to this country economically, the last time it was tried. Will good, glad we have that on record. And to really chuck the economy into the abyss, make sure to add UHC
Considering that it was worsened by the ensuing madness of the Reagan deficit years then fixed by the fiscally conservative Clintion years then easily brought to the brink of destruction by the maniacally-oil-loving BushII years, I'll take my chances with the guy that wants to screw the oil companies.
The people you guys should be whining about are the Enron-like speculators who are driving up the cost. When it all comes out that they were the cause of all this, there will be (and should be) hangings in the streets (as long as we don't care about "innocent till proven guilty").
-
<<No one wants to defend that one. Interesting. Good judgement>>
Higher "windfall profits" taxes on Big Oil are a cop-out solution for fake leftists. The oil belongs to the people, and the people need to take it back. A real People's Revolution would Take Back the Oil, that's why nobody is interested in Obama's fake-ass phony solutions that never address the real root of the problem, which is private ownership of national resources.
-
So, you have no problem with CarterII, and the disaster to this country economically, the last time it was tried. Will good, glad we have that on record. And to really chuck the economy into the abyss, make sure to add UHC
Considering that it was worsened by the ensuing madness of the Reagan deficit years then fixed by the fiscally conservative Clintion years then easily brought to the brink of destruction by the maniacally-oil-loving BushII years, I'll take my chances with the guy that wants to screw the oil companies.
LOL....gotta love the rewriting of history, and abject ignorance of each President's purse strings, called the House of Representatives. But at least you're honest with the destruction of the economy you wish to take full root. And given we'd have a Democrat Majority House....yep, Carter II in full regalia
-
<<No one wants to defend that one. Interesting. Good judgement>>
Higher "windfall profits" taxes on Big Oil are a cop-out solution for fake leftists. The oil belongs to the people, and the people need to take it back. A real People's Revolution would Take Back the Oil, that's why nobody is interested in Obama's fake-ass phony solutions that never address the real root of the problem, which is private ownership of national resources.
Hard to nationalize other countries oil. We are a net importer after all.
Or are you advocating blood for oil?
-
Or are you advocating blood for oil?
No, I've advocated moving to entirely different ways of life that don't require oil.
-
<<Hard to nationalize other countries oil. >>
Your "President" doesn't seem to find it so hard.
<<We are a net importer after all.>>
Yeah, the key word is "NET." There's still plenty of oil in the U.S. and the first thing you should start with is nationalizing all the wells, eliminate the profit motive and you might find that more oil can be pumped out of the wells now, when there is no longer a profit-motive incentive to keep prices up by keeping supply down. And sold cheaper too, now that the profits aren't being skimmed off by guys who "need" a second island in the Caribbean as an essential part of their compensation plan. In Canada, which is a net exporter of oil, hydroelectric energy and natural gas, it is even more clear that the sources of energy must be taken back by the people.
<<Or are you advocating blood for oil?>>
Not at all, but if the owners try to resist with armed force, I'd say put 'em up against the wall. Nobody has time for their BS.
-
So you would be in favor of drilling in ANWR as long as it was the govt and not some greedy private corporation?
-
So you would be in favor of drilling in ANWR as long as it was the govt and not some greedy private corporation?
No, I'd be in favor of doing away with oil altogether.
-
No, I'd be in favor of doing away with oil altogether.
I agree we should certainly lessen our dependencies upon it.
-
Petroleum is useful for making plastics. Many useful plastics can be made from soybeans, though. When it is cheaper to make something from soybeans than petroleum, that is what will happen. There won't be a total shutoff of oil anywhere, this will be a gradual process, just as the shift from coal to oil and whale oil to kerosene was a gradual process.
The government could and should strive to encourage the development of alternate energy. Giving the oil companies the choice of developing these or paying more taxes is a good idea. It would also be a good idea to lift the embargo on importing alcohol from Brazil. The whole ethanol from corn process depends on subsidies, and these should be phased out, so that they can develop fuel from crops that can be grown on marginal land without irrigation and fertilizer, like switchgrass and jojoba.
Big Oil has lots of sweetheart deals with the Juniorbush government, and these are not to the advantage of most of the people. Personally, I fill my tank with biodiesel (about 40 cents a gallon cheaper than dinodiesel) about 10 gallons per week, and I have invested rather heavily in natural resources funds, so I am personally profiting from expensive gasoline more than I am being ripped off. Not being an idiot, I see no reason to swim against a current I cannot control. In the words of Paul Simon, "who am I to piss against the wind?"
If you would like to benefit from the current silly pro-Big Oil policy too, I recommend FSESX, RYDEX and PRNEX funds as good choices to do this. USO is a bit too volatile for my taste. Naturally, check these out on your own, because my advice is not guaranteed and past performance is no guarantee of future success. EWC is a pretty good Canada ETF (exchange traded fund), with a lot of it involving the Canadian oil boom.
-
<<So you would be in favor of drilling in ANWR as long as it was the govt and not some greedy private corporation?>>
No, I wouldn't. Wait till I get to see Alaska first.
-
No, I wouldn't. Wait till I get to see Alaska first.
You would go to ANWR?
-
I'm just impressed how no one on the left can defend this notion as a way of decreasing gasoline prices. Instead it's support is largely as some sort of vengeful and justified attack to "big oil". All the while neither able to defend how such an 'attack" will get passed onto we consumers in the form of even higher gas prices. Yea, the party of the "little guy".......my eye
-
No, I wouldn't. Wait till I get to see Alaska first.
Most of ANWR looks like this:
(http://www.hickerphoto.com/data/media/40/caribous_anwr_T3745.jpg)
And most of it doesn't even have the pretty caribou to look at.
-
uh, that was supposed to be a joke. The humour lay in the supposed selfishness of it - - let me see ANWR in its relatively pristine state first and THEN despoil it by drilling for oil. As if I didn't give a shit about subsequent generations as long as I gratified my own needs to see and experience first. oh well. never mind. So I won't quit my day job.
-
I think we can largely "get real" on the notion of drilling. Folks like Brass, and probably Tee, wouldn't support drilling for oil anywhere, even if it were in Death Valley, or some other hellhole. So the notion that ANWR drilling is being opposed because it may negatively wrinkle the eco-structure and mating habits of some tundra amphibian are largely bogus. Drilling is opposed because any oil aquired will undoubtedly help "big oil", and they're the real enemies.
Ignore the probability of increasing supply & decreasing demand, ignore the probablility that gas prices would come down, ignore the new jobs created, ignore the new technology which greatly lessens the physical impact to the surrounding area, bottom line is if it remotely could be helpul to "big oil", it must be opposed......at all costs.....even if that cost is skyrocketing gasoline prices. Screw the "little guy", must stick it to "big oil"
-
Within a few years, the oil sands are likely to become more important to the United States than all the oil that comes to us from Saudi Arabia.
-
<<Folks like Brass, and probably Tee, wouldn't support drilling for oil anywhere, even if it were in Death Valley, or some other hellhole. >>
BS
-
So Tee does support drilling for oil. Capitalist bastard ;)
-
Requiring oil companies to invest money in alternative technologies OR pay the same amount in taxes makes perfect sense.
-
And most of it doesn't even have the pretty caribou to look at.
Definitely the first thing that I've read on here that made me laugh in a long time.
-
Yea, let's madate that Restaurants be required to invest their own money into farming. And if not, the taxes they pay could then be passed onto the consumer in the former of even higher costs. Yea, makes perfect sense
::)
-
Requiring oil companies to invest money in alternative technologies OR pay the same amount in taxes makes perfect sense.
Exactly yes.
And that is exactly what the windfall proposal wants to do.
-
Yea, let's madate that Restaurants be required to invest their own money into farming. And if not, the taxes they pay could then be passed onto the consumer in the former of even higher costs. Yea, makes perfect sense
::)
Actually, that's not really a bad idea. If restaurants owned their own farms, restaurant food would be cheaper. Like buying direct from the factory or something?
Hmmm, that sounds like a good idea. Grow your own food then use it in a restaurant. Surely some family does that already somewhere, right?
-
If restaurants owned their own farms, restaurant food would be cheaper. Like buying direct from the factory or something? Hmmm, that sounds like a good idea. Grow your own food then use it in a restaurant. Surely some family does that already somewhere, right?
Choose to, yea. Mandate?, I don't think so
Requiring oil companies to invest money in alternative technologies OR pay the same amount in taxes makes perfect sense.
Exactly yes. And that is exactly what the windfall proposal wants to do.
Which again does SQUAT to either the oil companies or the price of gasoline, as they then pass the cost on down to the cosumer. But hey, as long as it makes you feel better, that you're sticking it to "big oil", right? ::)
-
>>I think we can largely "get real" on the notion of drilling. Folks like Brass, and probably Tee, wouldn't support drilling for oil anywhere, even if it were in Death Valley, or some other hellhole.<<
True. No offshore drilling ... no clean coal ... no nuclear power ... No windmills within the sight of a Kennedy ... no ... no ... no.
The leftists were going to lower the cost at the pump, instead, they raised it. The left brought us this problem way back in the Carter years, and damned if they aren't trying to make it worse. It's part of their religion. Big companies are bad, especially big oil, because their faith requires them to worship the environment and part of their dogma requires the belief that the environment is a victim. The victim of big business. So what's their solution? Everyone should live like this:
(http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Rest-Of-U2-Jump-C.article.jpg)
The real solution is of course more energy, not less. The more access we have to energy, the better our lives are. But that' doesn't fit the template. We're bad because we are the healthiest, wealthiest country the world has ever know. We must be punished. You're seeing our local socialist/communists making a case for the state to dole out our energy and Oblather (props to sirs on that one) has said the same thing. But hey. don't call him a communist. The war on big oil is really the war against capitalism and given the chance, the communist/socialists will tell you what you can eat, what to pt your thermostat on and what you can drive. Oblather said it, and you're seeing it in here.
-
You set up a straw man (Brass and Tee are against drilling anywhere) and then you knock it down.
I do not recall either of them mentioned being against drilling, other than in ANWAR, perhaps.
The longer we wait to drill in ANWAR, the more able we will be to prevent serious damage to that environment, and the more money will be saved o every barrel.
ANWAR is like money in the bank or the family jewels.
-
Choose to, yea. Mandate?, I don't think so
When it was proven that more people lived through car accidents when they were wearing the seatbelts, seatbelt wearing was mandated. This is the same thing.
Requiring oil companies to invest money in alternative technologies OR pay the same amount in taxes makes perfect sense.
Exactly yes. And that is exactly what the windfall proposal wants to do.
Which again does SQUAT to either the oil companies or the price of gasoline, as they then pass the cost on down to the cosumer. But hey, as long as it makes you feel better, that you're sticking it to "big oil", right? ::)
[/quote]
Big Oil can get out of the "sticking" by applying these windfalls to new energy sources. So, what's your next spin going to be?
-
You set up a straw man (Brass and Tee are against drilling anywhere) and then you knock it down.
I do not recall either of them mentioned being against drilling, other than in ANWAR, perhaps.
The longer we wait to drill in ANWAR, the more able we will be to prevent serious damage to that environment, and the more money will be saved o every barrel.
ANWAR is like money in the bank or the family jewels.
Actually, I am against drilling anywhere NEW. I am totally for changing every car in the world over to solar power or running on saltwater.
ANWAR should never be drilled.
-
Choose to, yea. Mandate?, I don't think so
When it was proven that more people lived through car accidents when they were wearing the seatbelts, seatbelt wearing was mandated. This is the same thing.
No, it's not. Serving sushi at a restaurant is not saving anyone's life. Making a company or business perform some feel good thing that would simply see their overhead costs skyrocket is NOT the same thing.
Big Oil can get out of the "sticking" by applying these windfalls to new energy sources. So, what's your next spin going to be?
Once again, despite that they already are, with hybrid & electric vehicles, why would a company spend vital $'s on formats that would be in direct competion to themselves?? So, we're back to square 1, where your "sticking it to Big oil" is in turn sticking it to everyone else who needs to buy gas. Way to go, Brass. Way to stick it to the little guy
-
How is sushi going to result in anything involving energy? Has anyone proposed that ExxonMobil develop a sushi serving business plan?
Is developing biofuels a just feelgood thing, or is it a plan that could free us from dependency on petroleum?
-
How is sushi going to result in anything involving energy?
Because it doesn't. ::) Please try to keep up...Brass was referencing the notion that it'd be a good idea for restaurants to be mandated to have their own farms. Then cited seatbelt laws as some form of perverse analogy
Is developing biofuels a just feelgood thing, or is it a plan that could free us from dependency on petroleum?
No, not at all......by all means, for it. What you just posted though, is precisely why it doesn't work in the format you're advocating, mandating a business to come up with ways to put itself out of business. Some of their capital is already being used for other methods in fueling vehicles. Any TAX you try to impose will simply be transferred to the consumer in HIGHER gasoline costs
-
What you just posted though, is precisely why it doesn't work in the format you're advocating, mandating a business to come up with ways to put itself out of business. Some of their capital is already being used for other methods in fueling vehicles.
Suppose that in 1904 or so, buggy whip manufacturers were given the option of paying a tax or investing the same amount of money in klaxons, or livery stable owners were similarly encouraged to invest in methods of selling gasoline. Would not their employees have thanked the clever person who dreamed up this law around 1927 or so.
Gasoline sellers are doomed in the long run, for there will be no petroleum to make the gasoline from.
-
As I said, mandating a company to find ways to put themselves out of business isn't good business. Capitalism, and consumer demand is what will spearhead the drive for new energies you're pushing
-
As I said, mandating a company to find ways to put themselves out of business isn't good business. Capitalism, and consumer demand is what will spearhead the drive for new energies you're pushing
The oil companies are as doomed as buggy whip manufacturers and horsecar conductors. Why not encourage them to adapt, for the benefit of their employees?
-
Why not let them sink or swim as they so desire?? If they can't adapt, they'll go belly-up, now won't they......no more "big oil". You should be exstatic. Bottom line, it's THEIR job to adapt and deal with consumer demands. Currently the demand is skyhigh, and thanks in large part to our screw the little guy left, supply hasn't budged ----> sky high gas prices. Now the same left wants to push (thankfully defeated now) windfall profits taxes, already demonstrated to be an absolute disaster the 1st go around, with the domino effect of "big oil" raising gas prices even higher, to pass on the cost to the "little guy"
Brilliant judgement
::)