What is Digg?83 Comments
- Naieve, on 06/19/2008, -3/+16They won't use it to pay off debt.
They will use it however best wins them the next election.
If its billions in farm subsidies or tax cuts to the rich, they will find a way to waste our money. - inactive, on 06/19/2008, -6/+19Just look at how the government steals from good business. You provide the greatest quality product the world has ever known at extremely cheap rates and people hate you for it. I wonder what would happen if the oil companies said "***** you" to ***** that complained.
- obdurate, on 06/19/2008, -1/+9Well, look at companies like McDonalds. They're regularly vilified by self-appointed health police for selling a large quantity of food at a low price to people who want to buy it. Those bastards!
- Badandy127, on 06/19/2008, -6/+15Does this mean that the government can take the revenue made from all of those evil corporations and use that revenue to do some good, like paying off our debt or investing in education and alternative energy?
No way, I don't believe it. The oil industry is pure evil, nothing good can come out of it! - PopcornDave, on 06/20/2008, -0/+7P.J.O'Rourke said it best ( and I'm paraphrasing here ) when he said that giving politicians money is like giving your 16 year old a bottle of Jack Daniels, a .357 Magnum and the keys to your Jaguar.
The federal government is like the blob from the old Steve McQueen movie. The more it ate, the bigger it got and the more it needed to sustain itself. If you give the government more revenue, they're going to assume, more than likely wrongly, that they're going to have the same amount of money to play with every year, but every year they're going to want just a little more than the last year.
What they don't understand is that if they don't have the revenue stream, they won't have the money. So when those royalties dry up, they're going to be scrambling to replace that money.
Best not to give them any at all. - chrishavel, on 06/20/2008, -0/+7You're absolutely right. Any corporation that wishes to extract oil, minerals, timber and grass from public lands can do so without compensating the American public who own those resources. The benefits of conserved watersheds and public recreation land, provided by those dollars, to your health and well-being are utterly useless. Brilliant idea. You should run for Congress. You clearly have our best interests at heart.
- chrishavel, on 06/20/2008, -2/+8"The U.S. Interior Department's royalty rate for deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is 18.75%--up from 12.5% two years ago. This move helped the government take in $7 billion in offshore royalties, rents and bonuses from oil companies drilling in U.S. waters last year."
By law, this money goes into the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is used to buy and develop land for natural resource protection and recreation. So money is piling up in this fund at a record rate. Too bad the Bush administration and Congress refuse to spend it for the purpose it was intended.
Why aren't they spending it? To save money, they say. Here's all this cash from royalties that used to get shared with the states so they could make grants to communities when they want to buy new park lands or protect a watershed, just piling up in an account. Here's the trick: the administration and Repubs oppose spending money on natural resource land and recreation, so they cut off the funding. They spend less as a result, and count this lower level of spending as a "savings," even though it's nothing of the sort, because the money is collected regardless and ready to go.
Shameful. - inactive, on 06/20/2008, -3/+8You have to remember, there are a lot of narcissistic liberals out there that think they know what is best for people's personal lives. It must feel good "beating off" thinking about how "good" they are at telling other people how to live their personal lives because they're "obviously" smarter than everyone else. They have art degrees lol.
- inactive, on 06/20/2008, -0/+5another mind numbing comment from a partisan dip *****. both parties are the same.
- mcquitty, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4Well, with that said, I would think communism.
I could think of Cuba, which recently gave people the ability to rent hotel rooms, have computers and cell phones. And jailed political dissidents.
Or perhaps I should think of China. While it has certainly seen minor reforms, it is also the same government that chooses to "donate" organs of its jailed citizenry, prosecutes political dissidents and brings back memories of people being run over by tanks.
Or maybe I should think of the former Soviet Union. While that country gave us good hockey teams, they also gave us terms like Gulag. You certainly didn't want to be against the communist party there.
It is all fine and good, so long as you are towing the line and a good party member. - mcquitty, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3Is this another, "Don't invent the 100 mpg carburetor because the oil cartel will come out to kill you" conspiracy?
- zacharytelschow, on 06/19/2008, -7/+10If the Dems can't stop it, they'll just make sure we tax the hell out of it. Business as usual.
- Badandy127, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3Sorry, communism and socialism suck. I'd rather have control over what I want to do, how much I charge, and how I lead my life rather than having my profession handed down from government mandates.
And yes, we do have the moral high ground. Sorry Guantanamo Bay completely ruined your opinion of the U.S., but our judicial system is incredibly advanced. Bring up incidents all you want, but on the whole, we do a pretty damn good job.
Ship yourself off to Canada. - Realnemesis, on 06/19/2008, -4/+7Which reminds me... I need to take out a loan to put some more gas in my car.
- inactive, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3A business competes to win. If the government didn't offer it, no one would get it. Seems simple right? If a business turns it down out of ethical reasons, the competition will come in and take it.
If the government butted out of the market place completely, innocent or not, they'd be forced to compete evenly. - inactive, on 06/19/2008, -5/+8Uncle Sam has gone money hungry. What we need is a smaller leaner government that doesn't give large corporations large bail outs funded by taxpayer dollars.
- inactive, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3yes any obama supporter is guilty of believing this.
yay for windfall taxes obama! - mrswirl, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3This is a speculative bubble - just like the dot.coms and subprime mortgage and housing bubbles before it.
The supply of oil has remained relatively constant as has the demand side - at least in the US. Yes, there is growing demand in foreign markets but at nowhere near the same dramatic rates as the recent spike in oil futures markets would indicate.
Yes, there is also a real danger of the supply eventually tapering off to a point that will make today's prices seem quaint in comparison but the reality is that we are many, many decades away from that happening. If there really were actual supply shortages, we would all see lines at gas stations across the country the way we did back in the 70's. Refining capacity is currently high enough to meet demand barring the occassional hurricane or pipeline disruption.
Think about it - when was the last time you went to the filling station only to find that they were physically out of gas? I suspect that the answer is 'Never'. High gas prices are a direct result of the bubble forming around crude prices.
Bubbles form because of fear in the herd and an oversupply of capital chasing fewer investment opportunies. It is a virtuous/vicious cycle. High market prices attract investors looking to make a buck which further drives up prices which attracts even more investors, etc, etc. In the case of crude futures, nothing is actually exchanging hands except for money and paper (unlike housing which involves physical assets).
Bubbles burst when they can no longer sustain themselves and some kind of 'tipping point' is reached which causes the cycle to reverse itself. It is only a matter of time before this happens and the investment herd moves on to form the next bubble. Problem is that we all suffer until then. - AlienMushroom, on 06/20/2008, -3/+6Again, we are NOT short of supply of oil, but in excess of speculations.
- inactive, on 06/20/2008, -1/+3lol that you are being dugg down. i guess some people really like being taxed.
- altgeeky1, on 06/20/2008, -1/+3Dude, you sound too patriotic... rebuilding USA manufacturing?? Just do what the conservatives do... buy yourself a condo in Bermuda or Dubai, and skip paying taxes. Or if you stay here, you should be gleeful at the paper economy... pick yourself up some rental properties... this economy is like an unguarded candy store!
- WhiteRaven, on 06/20/2008, -6/+8What is really funny is the number of know-nothings that believe the oil companies are *subsidized* by the government. Their delusions demonstrate a mindset that makes the assumption that all wealth and productivity is the state's by default and anything that we are allowed to keep is a generous gift bestowed upon us by our betters.
- PhilLesh69, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2How does biomass find its way to 40,000 feet below the earth's surface, under solid bedrock?
The only source that could possibly exist at that depth is elemental carbon and other elements and products of geothermal, seismic, and volcanic activity.
What is natural gas made from? Methane is CH4, Ethane is C2H6, Propane is C3H8, Butane is C4H10.
These are not complex chemicals, they are simple bonds of hydrogen and carbon, both very plentiful inside the earth, and not requiring very much complex activity to create.
Even Diamonds are quite simple. Some carbon molecules subjected to intense heat and pressure for long periods of time.
Why is oil any different? Just because some scientist in the late 1800's detected biomass in the mixture of oil from very shallow wells? Because, like Diamonds, its value is based on artificial scarcity (even today, most of the artificial scarcity is due to production quotas, limited refinery capacity, etc.)? Because nobody could get rich selling something that was as plentiful as dirt at the time?
Look up abiotic oil. There is a lot of scientific information pointing to oil being of geological origin. Of course, your point about it forming slowly may end up proving right, even when people eventually realize it is abiotic and not biotic in origin. I don't think anyone knows how much the planet creates in any given time period compared to how fast we consume (and consumed) it. - inactive, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2steal it.
- DaDrake, on 06/20/2008, -2/+4Well since China is doing it... I don't see why the US should be restricted from doing it also. Furthermore, I am positive the US can extract the oil with less of an environmental impact than China.
- twomeyw23334, on 06/20/2008, -3/+5Taxing the living hell out everybody eventually leads to lower tax revenue.
- inactive, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2"Does this mean that the government can take the revenue made from all of those evil corporations and use that revenue to do some good [?]"
Ow! my sides hurt.
I think perhaps you're confused about your ethics and your enemy (or I'm not picking up on your clever sarcasm).
The "evil" corporations derive most of their evil powers from politics i.e. the government.
Businesses can be bad all on their own, but generally those lose customers and go out of business (or would)... yes if you suspend gravity on mars the evil businesses take over and ruin our lives, blah blah blah.
However when businesses are allowed to push legislation, they have the power of force by proxy of government. They can play dirty then, and only government sanctioned businesses survive. This mean less competition for them, and higher prices/worse deals for you. - WhiteRaven, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2You prove my point. You seem to genuinely believe that the purpose of taxation is to curb the wealth of those you don't approve of having wealth. And you really do think that money that is *not* taken is somehow a subsidy. In other words, you believe that there is some holy "correct* amount of taxation and anything below that is a gift.
You ass. - FreeTalkLIve, on 06/20/2008, -1/+3I hate my uncle sam. He's just a mean ol bastard.
- mcquitty, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2I guess somebody (or a couple people) don't know about the Laffer Curve.
Shame, really. - altgeeky1, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2For the moment, you're 100% correct.
But the big question is, why are we suddenly so vulnerable to speculators.
I'm all for bitch slapping oil funds that basically repeat the Enron buy-withhold-sell strategy... but this stuff is occurring overseas also, outside of US jurisdiction.
The real solutions to our current vulnerability are better CAFE standards, allow imports of ethanol (currently taxed the hell out of, because Brazil's sugar alcohol profitably sells for less than the cost of fertilizer to grow corn alcohol... a scam, that outfit), and (not that it will make much difference in prices) allowing drilling off Florida. It's funny how Bush was 100% against drilling Florida when his brother ran the state. These things all TOGETHER, because the keep-drilling-no-conservation supply side folks are more interested in profits than their home country's economic health. - inactive, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Are you sure?
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constituti ... - PhilLesh69, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Just imagine if our government stopped the usury taxation on labor and only made money from sales of natural resources (not just taxing private industry for their free access to national resources, but sales of it) and excise taxes, tariffs and usage taxes.
You would have a much more comfortable life. A life much closer in standard to the Saudis, who get enormous government paychecks from oil production. - inactive, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2McDonald's isn't healthfood?!?!
Why didn't someone tell me about this? /S - sgiffy, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Oil didn't (just) form from dinosaurs, it formed from any biomass. So sure it reforms, just really really slowly as there is not that much biomass that gets trapped in the right way.
- chrishavel, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Oh, I read what you said, but I decided yesterday not to be baited. Section 8 of Article 1 ... laying upon the federal government a duty to provide for the general welfare of its people ... is broad for a reason. If you wish to argue that Art. 1 Sec. 8 does not specifically enumerate natural resource protection as being essential to the welfare of the country, you will have to abolish all expenditures on agriculture, fish and wildlife, national forests, national parks, and the environmental protection agency. And if you wish to equate any tax collection with economic manipulation (for if collecting a royalty is manipulative, all tax collection must be treated in like fashion), I'm afraid all you've done is argued that the federal government should only concern itself with foreign affairs. The Libertarian Party is a vanishingly small group. Wonder why?
- sgiffy, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Well the public owns these lands. I suppose we they could just give it away for free. But then anyone with a drill is going to want a piece. You either play favorites or come up with some way to limit demand, maybe by raising prices. That's what we do now.
The other option is to sell the land. Given that their chock full of oil that price is going to be really, really ,reall high. - twomeyw23334, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1That's what I thought. They are robbing the oil companies blind. Let them keep their damn money, they work for it, what the hell do the politicians due?
- PhilLesh69, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2No. It won't run out. At least not for the reasons we've been told.
Ever wonder how the Russians can drill down 40,000 feet through solid rock, and extract oil from a place that no known dinosaur ever existed?
How did oil form from the fossils of dinosaurs 40,000 feet down through solid rock?
I guess dinosaurs had a very strict burial ritual that required very deep burials?
Or maybe oil is the result of geological processes, just like diamonds. - MadOgre, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1No, McCain has said he is against drilling in ANWAR...
And the Alaskans - Everyone i know from Alaska - WANTS drilling in ANWAR. - obdurate, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1McDonalds sells a variety of foods, some healthy, some not; the nutritional content of the items is readily available. People buy what they want; that's their own business. As P. J. O'Rourke summarized, in life there is one right and one duty. The right to do as you damned well please and the duty to take the consequences.
- Badandy127, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1But the fact is, these big oil companies really don't make a high profit margin. There are sure to be hundreds of products in your own home or apartment that were made by companies making more profit per dollar of sales than big oil makes. The reason that "big oil" is so vilified is that the quantity they sell is huge. That quantity gives them a profit of $11 billion per quarter, but the prices you are seeing is a direct result of OPEC (a cartel which would be illegal under U.S. law if it were based here) and the weakening dollar due to the government's inability to control spending.
Let's vote in a government who will bring in more than they spend. Unfortunately, neither of the two major parties offer that, so we're pretty stuck.
On one side you have a Republican who wants there to be tax cuts but doesn't have any feasible suggestions for reducing government spending, and on the other side you have a Democrat who simply wants to punish/tax the rich simply because they have money. I hate both. - inactive, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1he is ok with tapping alaska. and the only people that should have a say in whether or not to tap alaska is the alaskans.
- andy314159pi, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1With regard to that UN page: GNI and GDP are totally unrelated to the amount of actual industrial activity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can't believe that you think that because we have a high GDP that we have a high industrial output!!!!!!!
And I didn't check the "curious cat blog." - bincoder, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1I used to live in Texas which was funded by revenue from oil production.
It was nice to have the benefits of the government with No personal income tax, and a never ending budget balance in the black.
Unlike most others that bleed you on taxes and still provide nothing but a deficit and a bigger police state which they wrongly think will solve their budget crises and whos every decision is (trust us) in your best interest. - PontifexMaximus, on 06/20/2008, -4/+5Yes. Taxing oil companies will clearly lower prices- yes that's a great idea.
- andy314159pi, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2No we don't. Most manufacturing has gone overseas. No one can afford to manufacture because the competitors move abroad and take advantage of the unbalanced exchange rate. Bulk chemicals have moved abroad in the past 3 or 4 years. The only things manufactured in the U.S. are goods that cost more to ship that are going to be consumed or used in the US. And FYI, drug development and other "knowledge sector" activities have also moved abroad. I'm sure you can pick out some notable exceptions, but the economic activity in the U.S. is very low quality "builder bob" sort of activity. That's why everyone is ditching our currency and we can't afford gasoline anymore.
- andy314159pi, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2High gas prices are part of of a process of renegotiation of terms with those who hold the mineral rights and those with the capital to do the exploration and refining. Basically they have said that a good deal of the activity that people power with petroleum is worth less than the value of the petroleum itself. The reason that this is happening is that our economic activity has little value to those who own the oil, probably with the exception of agricultural products. What productivity do we have in the US that would be of interest to anyone outside of this country? Manufacturing of exportable goods has all been outsourced; our dollar is tanking and the price of oil is rising because we don't have much to offer anyone abroad who holds the oil rights. Until we figure out how to again produce goods that would be reasonable to exchange for a precious commodity like petroleum, it will be expensive.
- mcquitty, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Or farm subsidies.
Or energy subsidies.
Or taking money from the citizens of the states to give it back, minus a small handling fee, with strings attached. -
Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is