What is Digg?161 Comments
- tbone63, on 03/06/2008, -1/+23They don't need the subsidies. They making billions of dollars each quarter after they have paid taxes. The real solution would be to look at executive pay and stop paying out so much to stockholders.
- davewashere, on 03/06/2008, -1/+18Looking at the numbers, the amount of drillable oil under us is not that much. ANWR at full capacity would be able to supply less than 5% of U.S. demand. The solution is not to drill more oil, but to find ways to decrease oil usage.
- fancypantscz, on 03/06/2008, -1/+18Unless of course our increasing demand for oil outstrips any increase in domestic supplies. Which is what would happen because our domestic reserves are nothing in comparison to our demand. New domestic exploration is about allowing a few people to get rich off the exploitation of recourses that belong to the nation as a whole.
Obviously, the best and arguably, the only way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to reduce our dependence on oil. - Dumbledorito, on 03/06/2008, -5/+18As far as taxation goes, I hate to say it, but former Bush speechwriter David Frum had something that sounded, at least on the surface, like a good idea: A kind of "oil is cheap" tax.
Basically, Congress would set a price that, if gas/oil were to fall below it, the price would remain for consumers, but the money above the actual price per barrel/gallon would be collected as a tax for alternative energy, road repair, or some other related bugetary item. This, he said, would not only reduce the shock of high gas prices, but keeping prices high(er) in a time of fuel surplus would deter Americans from buying gas-guzzling cars and then feeling like idiots when the price of fuel eventually rose again. - afbase, on 03/06/2008, -4/+17you realize that drilling in america doesn't reduce the demand of oil at the worldwide level and by the time we would get the max barrels of oil per day out of any of these places. Drilling inside our nation wouldn't put a dent in scheme of the demand and supply of oil and the demand will have risen by some exponential growth rate (however big or small it is).
Arguing that congressmen that don't support national oil drilling are for higher gas prices is silly. Congressmen don't control worldwide demand or supply of oil. That implies they don't have the control or any stimulus power in the price of oil. :-Þ - sangjmoon, on 03/06/2008, -4/+17Forget shifting the money. Just don't bother taking it from us taxpayers in the first place. Look how shifting money into ethanol has hurt the poor by driving up food prices. The government is the most inefficient allocator of resources. I'm all for eliminating subsidies for the oil companies, but at the same time, I believe the extra taxes on them need to be lifted as well.
- spunkmyer, on 03/06/2008, -1/+12The sad fact is we have plenty of oil in the market right now. It's the speculators buying and selling oil each day like gold and silver that is driving the price up ! I love to hear comments from analysts saying hedge funds are pouring vast sums of money into the oil market. Give me a freaking break. Stop day trading oil and maybe the market will correct itself !
- Demistate, on 03/06/2008, -2/+13"Mission Accomplished."
- simplicityiskey, on 03/06/2008, -1/+11The funny thing is, we're fighting the War on Terror but not attacking the terrorists' main funding source. Where do we think these people are getting their money for AK-47s, roadside bombs, etc.? They're not exporting flying carpets. We're tracking terrorists who are shooting at our soldiers with bullets we bought for them.
- TexanRudeBoy, on 03/06/2008, -0/+10Can someone PLEASE explain why we give ANY subsidies to big oil? They set record profit margins every quarter despite the prices going up. Higher crude prices hurts everyone else, but merely lines their pckets further.
- greenm1981, on 03/06/2008, -0/+7Besides the unacceptable levels of pollution that liquid coal produces as it's burned, it takes in enormous amount of water to produce liquid coal. We are currently experiencing major shortages of water for consumption and agriculture in SE America and other parts of the nation. Why would we want to divert even more water to produce some dirty, inefficient slop that would only line the pockets of Big Oil even more?
- saturnx8, on 03/06/2008, -0/+7big oil needs to stop being big oil, and put on the hat of big energy, or they need to branch out and take on new roles.
- GinsuGuy585, on 03/06/2008, -1/+7Damn, now they will have to lobby congress again to get another tax break.
- pintomp3, on 03/06/2008, -0/+6subsidies is not an "investment". it's a handout to the already wealthy.
- drlha, on 03/06/2008, -2/+8High oil prices have nothing to do with oil running out, there is still a large amount of oil in the world to be tapped. Supply/Demand is not relevant here because supply is entirely set by whatever OPEC decides it should be. The real reason why oil prices are so high is that oil is traded in dollars and currently the only country that the dollar is worth anything in is the USA.
- CaptinCrunch, on 03/06/2008, -5/+11There is also a process (I believe its called gassification) to produce gasoline from anthracite coal. And the US is one of the largest natural repositories of coal in the world. It still causes all the pollution and carbon problems, but its OURS.
My personal thought is that we are waiting until we suck the rest of the world dry, and then use whats left for ourselves. - MindStalker, on 03/06/2008, -0/+5Hmm we make billion a day, can we spare .05 percent (thats 0.0005) of our daily profit to discover new profit?
- licoricewhip, on 03/06/2008, -0/+5there isn't a business expense that isn't paid by the customer. There is no way to "stick it" to the oil (or any) company. They will pass along expenses to the customer. Simple economics. Enjoy!
- Sheff, on 03/06/2008, -1/+6Let's all convert our cities to walking cities and public transportation. Let's force people to ride bicycles. Let's telecommute more. That way not only are we eliminating the need for driving, we'll be getting some exercise.
If you need to buy something you either have to carry it home on a bicycle or pay to have it delivered. If you have to pay to have something delivered, you'll think twice about buying it. If you have to carry it on your bicycle, it'll be something you have to have, so you won't be buying crap you won't need.
Look at Asian countries where people ride bicycles. How many morbidly obese Asians do you see that have to be rescued by the fire department because they're stuck in the tub or can't get out of bed?
I'm sure some of you think, that this would be impossible on a large scale, but on an individual basis, I'm sure each of us can find a way cut out a significant amount of driving if we really wanted to. - thatspsychotic, on 03/06/2008, -2/+718 billion over 300 million people? Hooray, $60. Enough beer for a couple weeks.
I'll pay for my beer, let's see more accessible renewable energy. - bromac, on 03/06/2008, -2/+7Why the hell does Big Oil get tax credits? They need help turning a profit?
Oh, I forgot who was in office. Carry on. - ussoldier, on 03/06/2008, -0/+4http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_tax - Hangly, on 03/06/2008, -0/+4"we're fighting the War on Terror but not attacking the terrorists' main funding source."
The CIA? - inactive, on 03/06/2008, -1/+5Coal to gasoline is a very inefficient process.
- drlha, on 03/06/2008, -0/+4Yep, the cost of searching for oil is so high that oil companies barely break even let alone make massive record profits.... oh wait!
- MindStalker, on 03/06/2008, -0/+4But thats the point, we have an existing infrustructure to distribute and use petrol in cars, using coal in cars would be just silly.
- SheilaNoya, on 03/06/2008, -3/+7Not entirely true. Bush's obscene national debt has also caused the value of our currency to plummet. Bush's answer is just to print more money, which lowers the value even further. His war in Iraq, his constant threats against Iran, and the new record low value of the U.S. dollar have a huge impact on how much we pay for oil.
- apc3161, on 03/06/2008, -4/+8How about an $18 billion tax credit for the people of the United States instead? If oil is $104, the market won't need any more incentives to invest in alternative energy sources, $104/barrel oil is plenty enough.
The average taxpayer could use that money more. - KSUdesigner, on 03/06/2008, -0/+3A president could invest in renewable fuels instead, but when he and his staff are filling their pockets from the profits in big oil he isn't going to be quick to invest in an uncertain alternative. We shouldn't be paying taxes to make other people rich, but we also shouldn't be electing people who are directly profiting from these corporations that are holding us hostage.
- thatspsychotic, on 03/06/2008, -1/+4By the time the rest of the world goes dry, everyone BUT us will already be on alternative energy sources, because they ALREADY have government programs and incentives in place that vastly out pace ours.
- inactive, on 03/06/2008, -1/+4Anyone else find the title difficult to understand? I'm pretty sure it could be worded better.
- chrissku, on 03/06/2008, -5/+8No President can lower oil prices. The sad reality is were running out. When something is running out the price will continue to climb
- orangetiki, on 03/06/2008, -0/+3Homemade Biodiesel FTW
- davewashere, on 03/06/2008, -1/+4I agree. Regardless of who came up with this idea, I think it's the way to go. I remember a time about 8 years ago when gas was under $1/gallon at the pump. Americans were buying Lincoln Navigators and the newly-released Cadillac Escalade and feeling big about themselves as they drove solo in their SUVs designed to carry 7 people.
There's no reason gas prices should have ever been that low. In that case, the free market was unable to compensate for the various externalities, including not only pollution but also a glut of gas-guzzling cars on the market that would cause a massive increase in demand for oil (and also more car manufacturers resources spent building even bigger SUVs). The impulsive American consumer would also have been better off back then if the government had provided a helping hand by keeping gas prices at a reasonable level (let's say $2/gallon), thus causing some people to rethink buying an 8 mpg monster truck. Alternative energy technologies, which were stagnant during the cheap fuel period, would also have been much further along by now. - MacEnvy, on 03/06/2008, -0/+3Almost as silly as using hydrogen.
- drlha, on 03/06/2008, -1/+4Drugs may provide some funding for terrorism, but a large amount of the money paying to arm both terrorists and insurgents comes from Oil Rich countries such as Saudi Arabia. Let us not forget the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals.
- nihilite, on 03/06/2008, -1/+4Stop paying out so much to stockholders? do you intend to nationalize the oil companies?
- kaeryn, on 03/06/2008, -0/+3Oil companies, aka Bush's buddies, are reaping ridiculous profits. I'm offended by this government allowing tax breaks for ANY industry that makes such profits. If a company makes over a BILLION in profits then it should receive NO tax breaks whatsoever.
- MerlinTW, on 03/06/2008, -0/+3With record profits I believe "Big Oil" can handle not getting 18 billion from the US government.
- kreneskyp, on 03/06/2008, -0/+3a president can't change the oil price but he can invest in renewable fuels instead. If they want to remain competitive then they need to invest their own money. we shouldnt be paying taxes to make someone else rich.
- pgoetz, on 03/06/2008, -0/+3The solution is to figure out how to use less oil.
- Shivetya, on 03/06/2008, -2/+4Raising taxes on big oil will simply take more money out of the pockets of poor people.
The whole system works by redirecting the ire of the people. Politicians learned long ago that the bulk of people are idiots. The people do not understand the idea of "embedded taxes". Basically what happens is anytime the government increases the tax on an industry it gets passed on. No business pays taxes, they simply collect them for the government.
So, lets crank the tax up. Do you think that the shareholders will accept lower profit margins? Hell no. Its going to get passed on directly (filling up your tank) and indirectly (anything else you buy). The politicians will be happy and we will all have higher real taxes . - inactive, on 03/06/2008, -0/+2Thanks for shilling for big oil, pollution, and stupidity.
Thanks for being a "more of the same" kind of guy.
Yer doing a hell of a job, posey. - macman2k, on 03/06/2008, -0/+2If you want to lower the price of oil, then stop increasing the supply of dollars! There, that was easy.
- salinemist, on 03/06/2008, -0/+2You're an idiot if you think that wind and solar are capable of supplying more than 1% of our energy needs.
- inactive, on 03/06/2008, -0/+2What would you the limit at $100/barrel or $3 gallon?
- sealbeater, on 03/06/2008, -0/+2I personally ride my bike to work and take public transportation. I realize that that's not a solution for everyone, but it's a start. If everyone who could so do, did do so, I'm sure we would see a reduction in oil expenditure and an increase in the populations general health. I live 15 miles away from work, fyi.
- rficwizard, on 03/06/2008, -0/+2Executive pay in the oil industry is not the government's business. Stockholder dividends are not the government's business. Oil companies are private; they should be treated as such. That includes both sides of the coin; they should not be controlled, and they should not be subsidized.
- raidfibre, on 03/06/2008, -0/+2Methinks the oil companies would find a way to fix prices to $.01 below the minimum.
"Oops we have emergency maintenance at 6 refineries.. all the time"
This would then translate to the government fixing prices FOR the oil companies. Na, probably not a good idea. - dmadzak, on 03/06/2008, -0/+2You do realize that a good portion of that price increase has nothing to do with the oil companies. It is traders and suppliers in other countries pushing the price higher to compensate for the falling dollar. You can complain about the oil companies all you want, but in this case they are not the culprits. Pull up two charts, the price of the dollar and the price of oil. You will see that they correlate very closely over the past couple of years.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 160 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is