What is Digg?100 Comments
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -14/+41Hahahaha - payback time for the oil companies.
That's the risk when you're a company and throw all your clout behind one political party - the other political party may end up not liking you very much.
Anyway, sounds like a good idea to me. - argoff, on 10/12/2007, -13/+28Eying money for conservation my ass, they are eying money for themselves and their political cronies. If they really cared about high oil prices, then how come the US government predestined this to happen by watering down the value of the US dollar by printing them up to buy bonds to finance the war in Iraq. Yeah, oil is up alright. So is every other commodity, because they are not really going up, but the dollar that is going down. If they were really concerned about high profit margins on oil, then they should take a look at themselves. They get 10 times the profit margin on oil taxes than the oil execs do, and sheesh they don't even need to make any effort to build refineries or explore and drill for oil. Anyone who thinks that the oil execs are going to pay this tax, and not us - I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
- Eldorian, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18All this means is higher prices we have to pay at the pump.
- GreenPlastik, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Not for nothing, but until the subsidies for oil companies are also cut off AND until they put in a tax for windfall profits based on self-created shortages AND until there are laws that stop regulating the price by shorting the supply, it wont amount to much.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, while this is a good start, I would like to see our politicians help America accomplish something that results in more than just an exciting soundbite to be used 4 years down the road in an election, but something that results in a chapter of a textbook 40 years from now describing a great accomplishment. American History seemed a lot more magnificent growing up than it appears it will seem to our future generations.
An economically viable Fusion-based energy source is not just some cool idea that we'll eventually get to. It is an issue of national security, because if we don't get there, China will. And I'm pretty sure they wont just give it to us for Christmas. The No.1 superpower throughout history has been the one to discovery the newest form of energy, from Fire, to the Roman Aqueducts, to Steam, to Electricity, to Nuclear power.
I'm just afraid that old money will be too complacent to realize that there is a very tenuous connection between a prosperous past and a forgotten future. For examples, please see Mongolia, Rome, Greece, Egypt, etc. - crash128, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8i learned a new word today from the above comments - diggtard (digg-tard). Seems appropriate given most of the comments. Yes, let's punish big oil for "gasp" making a big profit.
I have a better idea. Why not punish big oil for pushing us to go to war in Iraq (via
Dick "the dick" Cheney)? Or take back the billions of dollars spent on bogus Halliburton/KBR contracts?
Punishing profits is ... stupid. Punishing crime is good. - siszam, on 10/12/2007, -17/+23The same greedy retards who don't want tax money to help the poor but throw billions at war.
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Funny...the post office is still cheaper then many fedex services. Are we socialist for having them?
Airlines are heavily regulated, almost to the point of being controlled (depending on the admin) is that horrible (well maybe).
I don't think having oil run our country is the answer either, which they obviously do in many ways. I don't know why you would defend the rights of an oil company over your own rights? Why should I pay tribute to them? - kiwiboyus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10I just love how ideas like being self sufficient are attacked so quickly as socialist or communist by idiots. Yeah, because relying on the Private sector who are ONLY driven by profit is such a good idea.
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"well lets count the tax breaks they have been given, the NO SALES TAX on the Internet so they can make billions."
The oil companies get more tax breaks. They get the US military to do the work that their own security should be taking care of. They have roads paved for them so that we can use their product...they don't pay for that. They have zoning in hundreds of cities that is centered on cars instead of pedestrians or trains. They polute the land and we clean it...paying for most of it. Does Goolgle do all this too and more? If so, then I'm mad at google too. - GreenPlastik, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Do you even know what you're talking about? No.1: Define socialism.
No.2: Look up communism.
No.3: Do some research about Russia. Russia is not a socialist country. They are not even really a democracy anymore. It's a hard-line, corrupt pseudo-communist oligarchy.
For an example of a social democracy, please look at Germany. They seem to be doing just fine. - RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Basic economics: You can pass a tax, but can't determine who will bear the burden of the tax... ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence for more info on it)
Tax the oil companies for conservation - and they will simply raises the prices and it will be paid for by the citizens. - Wookie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9I totally agree. The oil companies won't voluntarily reduce their profit margins, they'll just pass the extra expense on to consumers. AND, since consumers punish the politicians in office when gas prices climb, it's a win-win situation for the oil companies. If the Dem's make this law, the only way out of it is if they start to fix gas prices....which I expect they will do once gas hits $3.50 / gallon and their poll numbers crash. Once the prices rise to account for the new tax, watch for a media campaign condemning the oil companies of gouging us poor consumers.
- Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Really? Democrats are the only politicians concerned with renewable energy and conservation? I guess that's why Ted Kennedy killed a bill last year that would've established the world's largest wind farm... because it would have obstructed the view from his summer home.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -14/+18It's a *really* good thing that diggtards make up only a tiny portion of the US population. If the wackjobs here were an accurate reflection of the rest of the nation, we would morph into some sick variety of Marxist/Socialist/Communist cesspool almost overnight.
- franksmith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Just amazing that the Denialcrats haven't yet learned that every tax action has an equal and opposite economic reaction
When are we going to learn that taxing ANY PERSON, GROUP OR COMPANY is taxing ourselves????????????????
The government has enough of our money to fund anything and everything they can think up... make our government do its job realistically people...
NO NEW TAXES!!! - jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Higher oil prices are what make Ethanol and other alternatives profitable, if you lower oil prices you will squash the very alternative fuels you are trying to develop because gas will be cheaper than the alternatives."
I love lines almost directly from oil company marketing hand books.
Maybe if we gave 1/1000 of the subsidies that we do to oil as we did to alternatives, then we wouldn't be taling about this. Check out the movie about how the government outlawed and pulled the electic car in california at GMs request.
Also look at how the public lightrail system was dismantled in the 30s in LA by company hacks. - jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13"Maybe we should do like Russia and just take over the oil companies."
Or do like America and have the oil companies take over the country. Thank god we can't be called socialists. Instead of the commonwealth of citizens controlling prime industries, you have prime industries controlling the commonwealth of the public. Now that's what I call liberty. - Wookie, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12This doesn't punish the oil companies at all...it punishes you and me. The oil companies will pass the cost of this new "tax" on to the consumers. The Dem's are playing with fire here because when gas prices rise due to the new "tax", their poll numbers will fall. Gas prices and political poll numbers are inversely proportional.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -17/+20Yeah! Show those greedy ***** what happens when you take advantage of the citizens of the USA.
What retards ever decided it would be a good idea to have our nation's resources exploited by private companies? - portwojc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually if the government just required the oil companies to maintain their business in a disaster like the require financial sector to do that would be enough for me. What other industry out there makes a profit from having problems like outages?
- CaptRR, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4kristov, wow you jumped to allot of assumptions their, nowhere did he say anything about the war, but your little democrat mind just cannot think of anything else. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, democrats just can't understand basic economics, its not emotional based so they just can't wrap their mind around it.
- CaptRR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Considering that you get your political information from Hollywood, it pretty obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11Deesnutz:
>I wouldn't mind paying $5 per gallon for the next two years, if I knew that after the 2 years we'd have a environment friendly and more efficient alternative fuel. Look, we just went from paying over $3 per gallon and got ***** to show for it. Only the big oil companies benefited from it. And we still are dependent on them and oil "terrorist loving" countries.
Exactly. This is what's known as "investing in the future." I realize that that's not a very popular phrase in the minds of short termers, which for everything must be done in the short term.
If the price of gas did rise a moderate amount then what would we have to show for it? People would drive less, for one. Air quality would improve. Asthmas cases would drop. Sounds like an excellent investment.
If gas prices rise due to neglect and incompetence like the last four years, we get a few benefits, but then the money flows out of the country. Better to invest in the future. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11@jaycliche
Before you tell me I need to learn something, why don't you bless us all with what you believe my definitions are for those terms? I know full well what they mean and I used them all intentionally. I also know what an "oligarcy" is. I'm not beating the oil drum, douche bag, I'm beating the capitalism drum. don't like it? You have two choices: stop buying oil and its derivatives, or move to the backward third-world socialist hell hole of your choice. Buh-bye now. - pdrap, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Capitalism is paying for what you use. Using something without paying for it is stealing.
Well, I want the oil companies to pay for the land they are using for free. It belongs to me, and I want a check in my mailbox. You might not care if oil companies steal from you, but you might also be a chump. I am not a chump, and I want my royalty check for drilling on land which I partly own. - CaptRR, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The problem is not the tax breaks and giveaways, I really don't have a problem with taking those away, they should not have been granted to begin with. The issue I, and many other people are having are these new "wind fall profit" taxes the Dems seem to be so obsessed with. In short, I don't think many people would mind getting rid of the tax breaks, but a windfall profit tax is just plain stupid, and will be sending the message to any company that "if you make what some politicians think is too much money we are going to tax you some more."
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Back in the days when it was ok to question large industry they used to call it price gouging when you take advantage of bad situations to increase your profit. Also called profiteering. It's like a mining town or a company store. We had little consumer choice during Katrina. Would you call that a well earned and fair profit?
Do you also think that fire-fighters should be privatized and only those who can pay get service? - Praetorius, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12Frankenstein says: "Oil bad. Capitalism bad. Government good."
Expect to have oil production go down, prices go up, and the oil companies make even more profits. How's that for unintended consequences? - repins, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The problem is the massive profits are caused be supply and demand, since China and India have significantly increased their oil demands and OPEC has maintained a strangle hold on the the amount of oil available the price has to go up.
Since the cost to get the oil out of the ground is basically held at a specific level all the increase in the price of a barrel of oil is profit. Now add to that the fact that the United States has not added a single refinery in over 25 years, we have different mixtures of gas for different areas of the country and different seasons this all limits the supply.
How do you propose to stop this? instead of dealing with the problem you propose that the US government just leach off the profits, and what do you suppose will happen if the oil companies start making less? Where will we get the money for all these new programs? - TxDr, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Renewable energy always a plus. Wasn't there a post about Exxon-Mobil threatening to stop funding money for public schools if Al Gore's movie about global warming was passed around? I think he gave close to 100k dvd's to schools around the US, but the threat alone was enough to return them.
Makes this article that much funnier. - dracheflieger, on 10/12/2007, -12/+15Hahahahaha...you're a dummas...they won't make any less...they'll just forward the cost onto us...and you may want to look at history...every time the government intervenes and tries to set wage controls, prices go higher...not just every once in a while, _every time_. Get a clue.
- deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -13/+16I wouldn't mind paying $5 per gallon for the next two years, if I knew that after the 2 years we'd have a environment friendly and more efficient alternative fuel. Look, we just went from paying over $3 per gallon and got ***** to show for it. Only the big oil companies benefited from it. And we still are dependent on them and oil "terrorist loving" countries.
During WWII, America bit the bullet and banded together for one cause. There where all kinds of sacrifices. Rubber, steel and other shortages & rationing. Which in the end we, helped us defeat our enemy.
We need to do the same here and kick our (as George W. Bush put it) addiction to oil. It's time to shake this monkey off our backs. And kick the oil profiteers and sheiks to the curb. The Republicans were lock step with the oil companies. But the Democrats will get it done. This probably won't be a good time to have stocks in oil companies.
This is the difference between the Republicans and Democrats ...
http://www.democratgiftshop.com/cgi-bin/store/store.cgi/777911571 - jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Hey lets go after Google for free laptops."
We are not reliant on google for our entire economy. We subsidize the hell out of oil by paving roads (that they don't pay for)...eliminating mass transit in places like southern California etc. so that we use more of their product. Their have been trillions of subsidies over the years. How many subsidies for google have been given? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3i don't know if it's the 'moral' or the 'immoral' thing to do, considering oil dollars are the main reason middle east wars occur. (iran said they will sell oil in euros in addition to dollars and panic started about "evil" iran, monopoly of dollars in oil = profit for usa. google about it, you'll be surprised how many respectable sources connect currencies to middle east wars).
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Not really. Prices are largely set by demand, and what the consumer is willing to pay before altering their consumption habits. ( especially in cases where supply is artificially manipulated by a number of forces, from exxon, to opec, to the pretend limitations of onshore refining. )
Oil prices are not currently set by pure free-market forces. While this action won't fix that, this action won't change that much either. - GreenPlastik, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Dems selling out next year? Highly Unlikely. Here's why.
The Democratic majority is very slim. If they hope to build a lead they need to continue to blame the Repubs for the downturn and the war and they need to continue differentiating themselves from their corrupt counterparts. Especially if they hope to win the Presidency. - jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Is that cause citizens are too passive and walked upon by big oil to demand fair prices?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2maybe you're talking about the dollar being established as a common currency after ww2, but i don't think there are obligations to sell products in certain currencies. i don't know if the stance of that agreement stands with the euro now in the equation and china and india getting stronger.
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It is amazing how uninformed people are - the only thing more amazing is how eager they are to spout off on matters they haven't bothered informing themselves about.
There are no "oil companies" - there are *energy* companies. The Democratic proposal provides an incentive for these same energy companies to invest in alternative energy and conservation technologies and practices - by doing so, they can neutralize the effect of reducing their windfall tax exemptions.
This measure is actually supported by some forward-thinking energy companies such as B.P., who have asked the government to help them make the transition from complete oil dependency.
Smart energy companies will use this program to subsidize the diversification of their revenue streams, by pouring some of their record profits from short-term oil windfalls into alternative energy programs. This will also help the country by dramatically increasing investment into alternative energy and conservation, and it will not cost the government net dollars.
It is a win-win-win strategy, with the government leveraging its influence by using market powers to benefit society, and you are all missing the point in your eagerness to stand mindlessly on either the Left or the Right rather than using your minds to evaluate each policy on its merits. - billjackson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@kristov
Hey man, you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that. Let's just base you argument on some facts.
The lower taxes have, in fact, increased tax revenues. More of our money is coming into the governmental coffers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washington/09econ.html?ei=5088&en=ec2d242da8699725&ex=1310097600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Poor oil companies? I am all for oil companies making as much as they can. Here is why. RISK. An oil company may spend two or three billion dollars in research, test drilling, pipeline construction, platform construction, ect. before one drop of oil or natural gas is taken from the earth. And the fact still remains, after months of drilling in a supposed field, the oil may not be there or be able to be tapped. Then, billions are wasted, just so another platform can be built to try and get the oil that is there. While the science is much better now, it is still not perfect. If someone is willing to risk literally billions to find it, they deserve all the profit they can make.
Pointless war?
There were three points as I remember them: (in no particular order)
1. Remove Hussein from power. (completed)
2. Set up a "democratic" government. (completed) (as a matter of fact, Hussein has been found guilty of crimes, by his peers, has been sentanced to death, by his peers, and will be executed, by his peers)
3. Find WMD. (uncompleted) but then again if you believe this internal government memo: http://www.steadfastpatriots.com/forum/files/iraq_wmd_declassified_986.pdf ]
maybe one could check it completed.
Republican destroying America? As in killing the "American dream?" Home ownership is through the roof. Unemployment is at near record lows. Tax revenues are at an all time high. And America is being destroyed? How exactly do you rationalize that comment? What is your basis of fact for saying that America is being destroyed? Maybe other countries don't like us. but that has always been the case.
Kristov, I appreciate you passion for wanting to live in a great country. If you look around, you might see that this place is pretty darn good under democratic or republican control.
Have a happy new year. :)
Is it a messy situation? yes
Has it been handled correctly? probably no
Is the country stable? no If stability was the way we looked at quality of life, then perhaps you'd like to have lived in Germany under Hitler, or even Iraq under Hussein. Both of those countries was darn stable. Everyone feared their leaders wrath, so no one got out of line. And you might want to leave the US right now, cause we have citizens killing other citizens every day. - clclark33, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@sirloin (and some others)
"record profits" is a term that has been tossed around and most Americans can't even tell you the difference between profits and a profit margin. The margins aren't any different. The fact that the quantity demanded doesn't go down even when prices go up show that oil has pretty inelastic demand. Now, on to profit margin... if they make a 10% profit, and costs go up to a record high, of course they will make a record PROFIT, even keeping the margin the same. I hate the fact that we are stuck with oil as a necessity, but I really hate it when people blame oil companies for Detroit's refusal to develop other means to power automobiles.
edit: And also, if anyone thinks the government can tax the "record profits" and it actually gets paid by the oil companies, you have zero understanding of economics. - kiwiboyus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2In response to jeffiek
"Nice to know you hold difference of opinion in such high regard."
- Don't try and act like you are somehow above everyone else here.
"Meanwhile, your slur about the private sector and the benefits of that ugly profit motive ( hint - you typed your comment on one of those benefits ) show a very idiotic concept of economics."
- And your simplistic view of my comment shows how narrow your view of the world really is. For your benefit, my issues with something as important as natural resources or energy being managed by a Private sector purely driven by profit is that it tends towards ignoring social responsibility and the benefit of society as a whole. You only have to open your eyes and look at the state of the world we live in to see the proof. Cut down the rain forests for short term profit and gain, why worry that we might be destroying cures for illnesses just waiting to be discovered.
But you're right it's economics, and short term gains make more sense than long term right.... and you have such good examples of profit benefiting us
Enron made a profit right. - mutz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Renewable energy development = work for the local economies...
Oil companies are scared to ***** on renewable energy because it's basically free (only an investment for solar panels or windmills) - pdrap, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm going to start a farm in the public park. Sure, it's community land. Sure, I don't own it. And, I'm not going to pay royalties either.
Since you think it's OK for oil companies to drill for oil on public land without compensating you for it, then you obviously won't care if I plant some corn and potatoes around the swingsets in your public park. - AmishRefugee, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9I would say 'way to bite the hand that feeds' but damnit, this is pretty much what the oil companies deserve
- reyitocazador, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@sirloin
I don't understand why people are digging down your comment. You're right on the mark. The oil companies only get about 5% - 10% of their revenue from consumers. They mainly get revenues from selling crude oil. This shouldn't have much impact on the oil companies and it will have even less impact on consumers. - billjackson, on 10/12/2007, -14/+15@Junkyarddawg
Sure. Stick it to the "big Oil" companies. Ad you'll be sticking it to the middle class, not only with higher energy prices, but if profits fall, so will the stock price. And in turn the value of 401K's and investments that have "big oil" in their portfolio. - Deuterium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How exactly will the Demorats pass these laws without W using the veto pen?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1what treaty is that?
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10"It's a *really* good thing that diggtards make up only a tiny portion of the US population. If the wackjobs here were an accurate reflection of the rest of the nation, we would morph into some sick variety of Marxist/Socialist/Communist cesspool almost overnight."
But instead we are honored with a corporate oligarcy turning into global feudalism. That's awsome (and learn what socialism, communism and marxism is). Just keep beating the oil drum, dummy. -
Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is