What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
32 Comments
- iching, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23The teapot dome was small potatoes compared to this, just wait until the American people find out how "Cheney's energy task force really worked" when the Democratic Congress holds hearings and hopefully reveal the truth. It will make the teapot dome scandal look like a tempest in a teapot compared to the rape that has occurred with these thugs. Global Warming is a cash cow for some and a calamity for the rest of the 99% of the world.
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11They're using federal land to reap profits. If you think this is fine, then I'll assume you have no problem with everyone and their mother setting up shop in a national park, staking their ground and hawking merchandise. This is nothing less than government welfare. They want to use the land to get oil but they don't want to pay for it. Although they don't give money to oil companies, it is still the same welfare effect.
- gmark13, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Um you think this just started with this administration?
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Because of the homestead act, land in the U.S. is divided more equally between Americans versus say in South America where they had no such thing and there's a large gap between rich and poor. Homestead welfare helped Americans, giving government land to oil companies gives a few CEOs bigger yachts, it doesn't affect gas prices. They are welcome to pay for land or even pay taxes for use of that land. But we shouldn't provide handouts to a few people at the top while we are running deficts and national debt approaches $9 billion. And the park system was put into place by Roosevelt to protect our forests, if you could sell all of that land then we'd look like Texas. I don't think anyone wants that. I like my Yosemite.
- venom8599, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7They're just evading these pesky little things called taxes. If you or I did the same, we'd get in a lot of trouble.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9actually it was clinton to be fair
oil was at about $10 a barrel..and he started to wave to royalities when oil proffits were tight..
but this admin did give them tax breaks and such while proffits were high. - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Clinton's tax breaks expired after five years. Bush's admin extended it.
A somewhat balanced article explaing what both adminstrations did:
http://www.energybulletin.net/14394.html - zeroeffect, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@ Johnnycashak
Enough of this "corruption exists on both sides" argument. And I use the term argument very loosely. Rather than debating the original point made above about how Cheney is screwing over the American people and lining his pockets in the process, you try to misdirect the conversation into one that tries to justify (or at least minimize) Cheney's actions.
Yes or no, is it acceptable that the Republican controlled White House, Congress, and Senate have all turned a blind eye when it comes to collecting royalties from Big Oil?
But I guess by using your logic, since corruption exists on both sides, we should just ignore *all* corruption. Yes, that will make all the badness in the world go away. See no evil, hear no evil right? So if I just stop listening to CNN or Fox News then the war in Iraq will be over? If I never go onto the streets of LA again then the US won the war on drugs and poverty is a thing of the past? If California hasn't been swallowed up by the Pacific Ocean then Global Warming doesn't exist.
Sadly, people don't do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. They do the right thing because they are scared of getting caught. Why do you think the Bible is always punishing evil-doers? Fear is a great motivator to stay on the straight and narrow. But, as soon as the American public (and the rest of the world for that matter) chooses to ignore the problems rather than address them -- in this case justify corrupt government officials -- things will only get worse and the America as you know it will cease to exist.
It is time to make an example of these individuals -- all of them. Starting with the most obvious screw-ups (Bush and Cheney, I'm looking at you), it's time to investigate and punish. Work your way down the chain of command. Regardless of whether they are Democrat or Republican, if they are guilty, prosecute them to the full extent of the law. It is the only way to maintain honesty in the government.
- venom8599, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You still end up paying for it. The cash to cover what this tax revenue would've paid for has to come from somewhere--taxpayer dollars and increasing national debt.
- almostretarded, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@ argoff
The land they are drilling in is not privately head land, but rather federal land that belongs, in a sense to all Americans. Therefore, it is only right that companies pay for a right to exploit said land, because in essence they are denying other Americans from enjoying it.
Also:
The United States Constitution gives the federal government complete control over the use and disposition of federal lands, even though they may be located within a state. - logomancer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8US Government corrupt, film at 11.
- martalli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Whether you like taxes or not, all governments must levy them. What do you think pays for the roads, police, waterways, etc? Britain didn't leave us with a trust fund after independence.
If the tax is somehow improper, the energy companies could lobby for a repeal, or bring the government to court to strike down the law. For whatever reason, they did not. They should pay the taxes. - Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ok, so why should we have to pay our taxes if they don't?
I understand two wrongs won't make this right, but maybe it'll make them notice. I'm sure there's a liberal wacko leftist judge out there that would agree (to coin a GOP term). - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You do realise that its not actually the reporters that do any of the research and investigating don't you?
They are basically just a good looking (for the most part) talking head that the public trusts, while the real work gets done by the producers and other staff. Just look at the credits for most current affairs shows and you'll see a small army of producers and researchers listed. The reporter might give the story a particular 'spin' but they don't do much more than 10% of the actual work. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@PowerCow:
To be doubly fair, it wasnt all bad Bush did offer up old bases for the oil companies to build refineries on. Which is a major problem, we have seen many refineries close without new ones to replace them and as such we are always running at 80% capacity. And anything can make the prices jump, maintence, hurricanes, or even the fear of. But i dont think they want to build more refineries. I think they like the price being volitile, be cause you can have that fast rise and the slow drop of the price at the pump and make extra profit.
I dont know bush's motives or how other people feel about refineries on bases but i know we could use more, so bush had a decent idea on that one IMO.
well it would be even nice to just use less.. but you know reality and all. - shrewduser, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"wave to royalities when oil proffits were tight.."
sounds sensible to me, if all exploration stopped because of temporarily low prices for oil we could see a serious future shortage..... - KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you want to know more check out Crude Awakening from PBS's Now
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/224/index.html - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@PowerCow, I certainly wish the government would give me some of those old bases. What would one of them be worth, $100 million?
Why should they be handing out money to large companies that are making record profits? ***** 'em. If anything the government should take them over like Putin took over Russia's oil giants. Throw the execs in the slammer like they deserve for collusion and tax evasion.
Free market my ass. - mdornfeld, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Is anyone surprised?
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Patriot act: The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ...
Patriot act: The government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.
The constitution has been twisted for awhile as you can see.
Recently I have heard a lot about state's rights and the constitution. I didn't hear about state's rights when it came to medicinal marijuana or gay marriage being allowed in Mass. This must mean that republicans no longer have all 3 branches. Now that the democrats have federal power we must be wary of the federal government. This is very humorous to say the least. - scutter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Yeah, let's charge those royalties! I'm really looking forward to paying the higher prices that will result when the oil companies pass along this tax to the consumers!!!
- jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3blapierre: You made me log in because you're an idiot. The paragraph in Section 8 that you are quoting is granting Congress the power to create Washington D.C. and exercise all power over it and barring the state from which the land was purchased to control it. It has nothing to do with whether the federal government can own land.
Some people understand the Constitution, others become libertarians. - RamanujanRedux, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Wasn't Armen Keteyian working football games last year? Now he's the chief investigative reporter? How far CBS has fallen.
- blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Actually according to the Constitution the federal government only has:
"The Congress shall have power...
to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings"
It isn't even constitutional for the federal government to own barren land, but since when does the federal government follow the constitution? - mreiland, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0I work in the industry itself and I can tell you that the claims are ignorant. If there is an audit problem it's the fault of the government & does not in any way reflect on the oil companies, but I find it highly unlikely that this is happening. I've dealt with enough federal leases to say this with some confidence.
Every state/federal O&G Lease that I've ever seen has had a provision stating that the payment of royalties & bonus( yearly rentals for use of the land) may be waived if the government deems it in to be necessary to facilitate extraction, and exploration of the lands. The government is fully within it's rights to do this.
I couldn't say exactly what was happening without specific examples, but in general I tend to believe that it's either a valid agreement made for a specific reason or it's simply an auditing mistake.
Should the O&G companies be brought to task for their gross profit margins? Certainly, and I sincerely hope that it happens. But this is nothing more than sensationalism at its finest. If Reporters were held as accountable as the O&G companies are on federal land, you wouldn't be reading the above story. - kindpastor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Any economists wanna weigh in on the benefits of giving oil companies free land to..drill us more oil? I respect their opinion better than somebody who read too many issues of Green Lantern, Green Arrow namely, most Digg submitters.
- DRTED, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0If only the Wiimote, created by Super Mario himself, could help the oil companies.
- argoff, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1The US homesteaded millions of acres of lands to farmers, do we ask them for a commission to the federal government. I think it's presumptions to think that the federal government is entitled to control access to these resources to begin with. Of course, some people think the land should be used one way, and others think it shouldn't. But we have a system for resolving these kinds of conflicts - it's called private property. That's how the rest of us deal with conflicting views, what makes the government so much better than everyone else?
- RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Yes! Damn those oil companies! Pay more money to the government so that my gas prices are even higher!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Yes! Bring on the democrat senate and house hearings to investigate this scandal, which I have just dubbed 'Hey! Where's our cut?!'-gate
Perhaps the real 'inconvient truth' is that corruption exists on both sides of the party lines. I thought about making a movie on this subject, but that would be about as shocking as making a movie based on the revelation that fast food is bad for you, or something like that. Wait a minute... call my producer... Johnny's got 2007's Oscar winning documentary right here baby! - argoff, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1spartan777 really has a good point. Why should the government get to control all the land and resources by default anyhow? Where in the constitution does it say that the government should be in the land and resource management business? I can show you where it says that the rights not specifically enumerated for the federal government are reserved for the states and the people respectively, though.
- spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -16/+1wow, really misleading title. oil companies aren't getting anything. they're just not getting robbed in another way.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is