What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
75 Comments
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28He has introduced the draft every year for 3 years running now. He has no backing in the Democratic party. In 2004, he didn't even vote for his own bill.
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000194.html
Just as Ted Stevens doesn't represent all Republicans, Rangel doesn't represent all Democrats. - iching, on 10/12/2007, -8/+25Oil prices went down reaching a 17 month low after the election however gasoline prices went up almost 20 cents after the election. Now think about that for a second and look at statistical historic evidence of that happening before. Who didn't see that coming from the oil companies and their ties to this administration?
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/nov/09/gasoline_prices_rise_after_election/
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/1310AP_Oil_Prices.html - iching, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20Actually your information is incorrect, the price of gasoline began to fall from its high in July of 2004 and made a steep declined through December of 2004 then rose again.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp
Manipulation of gasoline prices vs oil prices are two different parts of a complex equation, just forget a minute about the oil companies outrageous profits that would enable them to afford to take a little hit on their profits in order to influence elections.
From the Statement of Senator Carl Levin, Chairman, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations; Hearing on Gas Prices: How Are They Really Set? US Senate, 30 April 2002:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/gas-prices.htm
Gasoline Price Manipulation Before the Elections:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/stojan1.html
Manipulation of Gas Prices
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/JulAug2004/gupta0804.html - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Wrong.
The breaks were part of the Energy Bill passed in 2005. The Clinton Administration had no control over the 2005 Energy Bill.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/house/1/votes/445/
Stop blaming Clinton for all the things the current administration does that are unpopular. - ajb2015, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16I think the larger concern is that the government gives tax breaks to what is probably the most profitable business on the face of this planet.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Goddamn right.
We gave the oil companies US$6B last year in a year that oil companies were making the largest profits of any company ever recorded.
That makes no sense. - Ulisses, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14@BenHamby
take a look at campaign contributions for the GOP in past elections, that'll give you a hint. - kemche, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Actually if you read the text of the bill it's not for an actual draft. It states that if there would be draft there will be no exemption for rich and well connected people.
- BenHanby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13This baffles me as well. Would someone care to post a link or explain why our government is giving tax dollars away to the richest companies?
- cramtod, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11You get what you pay for.
Top Recipients of Oil and Natural Gas Industry Contributions, 2003
(http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=123)
President George W. Bush $113,622
Rep. Don Young, R-AL, Transportation & Infrastructure, Resources, $109,150
Rep. Joe Barton, R-TX, Energy & Commerce, $105,000
Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-LA, Energy & Natural Resources, Appropriations $102,000
Rep. Tom DeLay, R-TX, House Majority Leader, $99,075
Rep. Barbara Cubin, R-WY, Energy & Commerce, Resources, $91,000
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-TX, Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Apropriations, $90,270
Rep. Heather Wilson, R-NM, Energy & Commerce, $85,183
Rep. WJ Tauzin, R-LA, Energy & Commerce, Resources, $79,400
Sen. John Ensign, R-NV, Commerce, Science, and Transportation, $78,500 - deepthunk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Watch "Who Killed the Electric Car?"
It is a huge eye-opener as to how government, the auto industry, and big oil are so intertwined.
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/ - weaksnyc, on 08/14/2009, -2/+10Nice try TexxMexx... apparently the point that was made by the draft "discussion" flew right over your head. No one wants a draft, he's proving a point. Get your facts straight before you adhere to the familiar policy of "fear promotion." Just makes you look ignorant.
- BenHanby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@cramtod
So, we have total contributions from the Oil & Gas industry towards the 2004 + 2006 election cycles (mostly to Republicans):
$39.8 million
Tax breaks to Oil & Gas industries in the 2005 energy bill:
$14.5 billion
Hmm, that's a return on investment of over 36 thousand percent!
I think there's an argument for tax payer-financed elections in here somewhere... - RomeyRome, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9They'll just jack up oil prices to get the reps back in two years...
And don't fool yourselves & say that people will turn to alternatives. I'll gladly pay $6/gal. Everyone will pay too, gladly or not. - MaddDog, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17If that's the case, why did oil companies let prices rise so high during the 2004 elections? Oil was $25 a barrel in 2003, but had doubled by the Presidental elections to $50 a barrel in 2004. Everyone was furious.
I think you overestimate the amount of control public oil companies have on the world markets. Private oil companies (e.g. national ones like in Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezula) account for 14 of the 20 largest oil companies in the world. And 7 of the top 10. - jus1haz2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Get a job man.
I mean I got 12mpg in my explorer and filled it with premium (because of o2 censor problems) I mean sure it sucks but its all just supply and demand, they could put it at 4$ a gallon if they wanted to and most people, including me, would still buy it. - adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The key words being "try to repeal" or in Washington-speak: Untill the bribes and perks are big enough
- 13B1303, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9How bout lowering gas taxes?
http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gas_taxes_by_state_2002.html
You can complain all you want about how much money the oil companies profit, but while the oil companies are earning their $0.08 per gallon the US gov. is basically extorting its $0.42 (average) per gallon. This tax is a huge burden on the lower income earners. And it's gouging if you ask me - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I don't think it takes a conspiracy between the Bushies and oil to trigger the oil companies to lower prices hoping for a Repub victory.
I mean, any oil exec would rather have an oilman and a failed oilman in complete control than have those who oppose them take over. You're gonna get more favoritism and government handouts from your pals than from the enemies of your pals. - appetite, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I think we don't like it.
I really enjoy all the "free market" defenses for the oil industry, which lobbies hard to keep reasonable alternatives away from the market. Public transportation systems in this country should be decades ahead of where they are now. If those were better, people would be thumbing their noses at the oil companies. Unfortunately, any big industry does its best to tangle with the government to keep competition away--then they cry "free market" when people complain about their huge profits in spite of unhappy customers.
Makes me laugh. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8They're getting rid of lobbying incentives, too :)
- cramtod, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I guess it depends if the Dems can get the gas & oil contributions now that they will be the party in power. At least one party is bought and paid for.
Oil & Gas Contributions, 2006
Democrat $2,380,812 (17%)
Republican $11,849,320 (83%)
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=E01 - L0t3k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I don't know if I buy that. Oil is a limited resource that requires real expenditures to extract, move and turn into something I can use. That's not to say there aren't serious controls on that resource that manifest themselves as price differences, but they aren't completely fabricated.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"The Democratic leadership has already indicated it will try to repeal earlier tax breaks for oil companies."
And just who do you think this is going to hurt? The oil companies? No. They'll just pass this on to the consumer. A lot of whom can't afford it. You people amaze me in a head shaking way. - BenHanby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@theDevilsDue
Regardless of who originally passed the tax breaks, I appreciate the cogent reply.
So, in effect, if the new Democratic congress goes back to charging royalties for federal oil, then the oil companies won't be able to do as much exploration or infrastructure development.
Somehow though, I can't see oil companies losing exploration opportunities due to lack of funds. I understand it's a national security issue, but don't they have enough money to develop all their opportunities without the aid of tax breaks? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8If they aren't offered Tax Breaks, they will simply take away those lower prices from the consumer, they will get their money either way
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5so we must appease the oil cartel who have been enjoying record quarters or they will take it out on us for not giving them even more money?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm sure there is an incredible ideological difference between the two parties; what kind of coffee they like to drink. Other than that, absolutely the same lazy self-serving pack of lying thieves. Americans need re-education, they can't remember more than 1 meal ago.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The oil company's have been killing us for years with everything coming out of your tail pipe causing cancer.
- VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I really really hope they stick it to them as bad as they have been sticking it to us... But than again they are politicians and probably just going through the motions.. :(
- halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Yeah, right, like The Democrats aren't in Big Oil's pocket too.
This is what's going to happen:
Congress will at least try to push through a few bills that slap Big Oil on the wrist.
Republican response will be based on how much they think their political futures depend on "anti-big-oil" They may filibuster the new laws, but probably not.
None of the new laws will have any teeth, and the alternate energy initiatives will remain underfunded. If any decent funding levels squeak through, the project will be cut during debates over the next budget in order to save money.
Within six months, the tax cuts to Big Oil will be restored, under the guise of providing economic incentives to boost the economy.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. - frosted, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4First off, Republicans spend without taxing, this creates debt. We have an enormous debt now.
Big oil will just do what they always do, PAY for legislation in their favor. Special interests hold America hostage no matter who is in power. Ever wonder why oil gets so much interest when electricity can be generated almost free with wave power, wind power, solar power, noise power, kinetics, and so many other means? Oil is established. It makes billions and is the primary reason we go to war. Infrastructure for oil was never changed, or updated. This is because there are so many people in the oil loop now, that to cut off the supply would kill so many jobs that we would all be starving in the streets.
We need to change to a renewable source, but we just won't pt the effort in.
Hydrogen, by the way, is more costly to the environment than oil, building infrastructure for hydrogen would put more money in the pockets of the same people we elected and who ran the USA into the ground. It also costs the environment more in pollution to create hydrogen on that scale. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Was lead a carcinogen? They use other additives, maganese or something just as good.
- apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"...As if electric cars weren't lubricated."
They aren't. The electric motor only has one moving part, and the bearings are sealed.
No oil changes, coolant flushes, etc are needed. No motor maintenance whatsoever is required. (Older DC motors may need brushes every 100k miles, newer AC motors don't even need this.)
EVs don't have to be expensive either. Take a look at these Chinese EVs (the EV market is lots bigger over there):
http://fevehicle.com/services.html
This outfit is looking for distributors. Prices are in US dollars, and start at $6500. We could see prices like that here, too, with mass production.
Here's how to get an EV for as little as $5000 here in the USA:
http://www.squidoo.com/cheap-electric-car/ - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Nah. This Congress will attempt to "take care of you". If that doesn't make everyone think, nothing will.
- Xinareiaz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Hey, I've been homeschooled my entire life and I started college at 16. Although, it does really mess some people up socialy. An extreme will always be the wrong answer.
- bryanedds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Government is the problem, but oil companies get the blame. And when the new legislation passes which increases consumer prices, the American people get *****.
Government gets bigger, corporations surrender more and more control to government, and freedom slowly dies. It's the road to fascism. And it's business as usual with the "progressive" Democrats and "conservative" Republicans.
Wake up America, your freedom is dying. - jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm a democrat, but IMHO, this administration has gone far beyond the dem/rep dichotomy, they've lost all competance.
Now I did'nt like reagan, and I did'nt agree with a lot of the things he did. But at least he was well-meaning. He vetoed a transportation bill because it contained 152 pieces of pork.
The 2005 transportation bill had over 6,000 pieces of pork. Think bush vetoed it? - apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"...Just because Ed Begley, Jr. will buy a car that will only take him 100 miles, doesn't mean we all will."
This is called a trade-off. In exchange for driving a car you can't drive to the next state (lots of people seldom or never do that) you get a car that's clean, very low-maintenance, and lots cheaper to fuel than a typical car. And one that the oil companies don't make a dime off of.
If a major car company had the balls to market such a car, you'd be surprised at the size of this market. - jus1haz2, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Ya IMHO homeschooling screws ppl up. They have no social skills and cant communicate will with other people. I know about 7 home schooled kids, 3 are cool, but the rest are messed up lol
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4that was one senator . not a consensus. what if i was to stereotype the whole republican party as pedophyles (foley)
- h3smith, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Sorry, but high gas prices are the only way we will move off of a oil based economy.
People only respond to economic incentives. You can make all of the "it is great for the earth" arguments you want but when you get down to it, people only care about their money.
So, when the price of gas rises it does something magical, it makes people think and WANT products that are more efficent and are less costly. It also creates a market with a lot of money to be made. What if you can undercut the price of oil with some new type of fuel? Well then you could be a very rich person.
It is all about incentives. No company should get corporate welfare, but the gov't doesn't need to be helping push any sector either. They have done so for gas for long enough and look where it has gotten us. - theDevilsDue, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Honestly, I'd like to see at least a temporary repeal of the tax or a tax credit given to those with lower incomes. I'd also like to see the oil companies chip in and do the same to help low income families, especially with the price fuel oil and natural gas. Generally I'm a free market type of person, but the spike in prices happened so quickly, it's been a major burden for many people.
- jull1234, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Yep, cause we need way ***** roads.
- 13B1303, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ jull1234 "Yep, cause we need way ***** roads."
If you lived near Detroit you would know that that is not possible ;D
Needing a descent road doesn't justify inequity. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Great, higher gas prices here we come!!!
These idiots even think they will be helping us. - Jammer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@tomboy501
What a naive lame-o you are to think that "Big Oil" is going to worry about a bunch of politicians who happen to call themselves "Democrats" . It's all about the mother's milk of politics (money), and once the big oil conglomerates start spreading the love to the campaign funds of Pelosi & Friends you'll see any tough talk made earlier in the year about oil profits from the Democrats become a brief but distant memory. - Burritovision, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2There is no way ‘the democrats’ can regain trust for American state leadership without addressing 9/11 and matters of high finance.
- theDevilsDue, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Oil companies do not control the price of oil, the market does. They can control the price of their products, though, and I can almost guarantee that any increase in their costs to manufacture their product will be passed directly to the consumer.
I just hope the Democrats don't take the Al Gore approach and push for high taxes on fossils fuels as a way to reduce energy dependency. They only ones they will hurt with that approach will be the ones already struggling with high oil prices -- the poor and middle class.
Huge volume = huge profit. What's worse? Selling 10,000 widgets with a profit margin of $5 per widget or 1,000,000 widgets with a profit margin of $.05 per widget? And who is actually surprised to find that the oil companies are out to make a profit? Not me. Their job is to earn money for the shareholders. No incentive = no product. Don't like it? Start looking for alternate means of transportation. -
Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is