What is Digg?442 Comments
- lolupissed, on 06/11/2008, -17/+191This is dumb, the republicans actually did something smart here. This will help keep oil prices down.
Oil Exec #1: Hey we are getting this crazy ass taxes on gas, we are gonna lose out on our profits
Oil Exec #2: O Rly?
Oil Exec #1: Of Course not idiot, we will just charge more for it
The real problem is the speculators, so fawk you speculators - radiantarchon, on 06/10/2008, -15/+166the government makes 15% off of oil
the companies make 4%. our liberal congress has a dependence on oil
all the bill would have done would be to raise gas prices even more, hurting America's economy and citizens. - inactive, on 06/11/2008, -7/+148Hmm, rather that spouting off with emotional rhetoric, let's use a bit of logic here. Both the fed and the states impose HUGE taxes on each gallon of gas purchased. Most gas stations make about 5 cents per gallon.
Now, should a new tax be imposed on the supposed windfall profits of oil companies....who will ultimately pay the bill with higher fuel costs? US you ***** idiots! Taxing the oil companies only means they'll jack up prices to cover their costs and pass that on to the consumer.
If you want lower fuel prices, we need to build more refineries and tap into the ample supply of oil already here. It amazes me how completely ignorant the average person is. You think Exxon is going to sit back and have their profits taxed to death without passing that on to you?
It seems we've slipped to the point where this country has a plethora of double digit IQ citizens who simply believe anything fed them without actually thinking. Good job NEA!!! - mcm297, on 06/11/2008, -24/+154Digg has been transformed into a liberal stomping ground, whereas stories which trash McCain or glorify Obama make it to the FP.
Yes the Republicans blocked the measure, since all the Democrats did was impose another tax (without representation, like all Democrat mesaures.) If the Democrats really wanted to cut gas prices, they'd grow a pair and let american corporations explore and digg for oil on the coasts, the plains, Alaska, et al. But we all know that won't happen.
These esteemed boobs leading our country are the same morons who failed their eighth grade supply and demand economics classes.
CAPITALISM FTW, COMMUNISM FTL - paintpro, on 06/11/2008, -10/+103It is irrelevant. The republican understand that demand for fuel is inelastic, meaning all taxes are passed on to the consumer. I'll say it again, taxing oil companies will increase the price of fuel. This is because we have to get to work no matter how expensive gas gets. So yea, ***** the republicans for looking out for us.
- inactive, on 06/11/2008, -17/+103Tell me again why the BigOil wouldn't pass along any tax increase directly to us, the consumers?
Note to Libtards....
Companies NEVER pay ANY taxes. We consumers pay all taxes. - lylepratt, on 06/11/2008, -7/+76I don't see how digg can be so Pro-Obama and still get it right in this comment debate: higher taxes on the oil companies (or any other business) hurt consumers. Obama's tax plan contains the biggest increase in corporate taxes in 40 years. Am I missing something?
- didiman, on 06/11/2008, -6/+60The democrat solution to any economic problem is to tax more and have the government "solve" the problem. This concept is flawed in so many ways I don't even know where to begin. Raising taxes, in any form, will not help the economy or oil prices.
- sjbdallas, on 06/11/2008, -9/+63If congress wants to do something that would TRULY affect the price of gas, they should allow the construction of a few new refineries.
- greenlion, on 06/11/2008, -10/+59Oil companies would just pass on the cost of the tax to consumers.
- pablo0713, on 06/11/2008, -3/+45I applaud the Republicans on this issue. Taxing Corporations just means we consumers have to pay more. I live in California. Gas is very close to $5/gallon. The smarter move for me to make is to protest ala public transportation and more walking AND staying away from crap like plastics.
- inactive, on 06/11/2008, -5/+45Congress is only taxing American oil company profits, not foreign companies. It's like having reverse-protectionism. Why don't they just make out checks directly to Hugo Chavez? Democrats got exactly what they wanted anyway - an evil villain they can demagogue during the elections. Except, instead of terrorists, it is American businesses. Just don't question their patriotism.
- afruff23, on 06/11/2008, -8/+42You pay more in taxes on gasoline than the profit gas companies make on gasoline. But don't let HuffPo know, logic is not needed here.
- inactive, on 06/10/2008, -6/+38One question to the American public:
Would you prefer to see gas prices rise even higher to offset the money lost due to these taxes? - inactive, on 06/10/2008, -7/+38Perhaps you'll realize with your incredibly short-term thinking, that the money that oil companies would lose based on these new taxes, would just work itself right back into their bank accounts by upping the price of their product.
Companies don't usually sit by idly and allow themselves to get raped by taxes. They try to offset the cost by making a bit more off of their customers. - SeventhSon, on 06/11/2008, -8/+39If we outlaw taxes, only the outlaws will have taxes.
- MaynardJK, on 06/10/2008, -2/+31There is a big difference between giving someone a subsidy and taxing them. Don't use dishonest spin to try and win an argument.
- unpolloloco, on 06/11/2008, -5/+34Let's look at the problem rationally: $150 per barrel oil / 42gallons of gas per barrel = $3.57 gas not including any refining or distribution costs. That means that oil companies are taking a loss on refining/sales of gas, but making a profit on the production of oil. Oil prices are set by international demand + speculation (up to 60% http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/articl ... not by american oil companies.
- active1x0, on 06/11/2008, -11/+40Yes, raising taxes always makes prices go down.
- rockstarhour, on 06/11/2008, -4/+30The real story is in the last paragraph: "A GOP energy plan, rejected by the Senate last month, calls for opening a coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil development and to allow states to opt out of the national moratorium that has been in effect for a quarter century against oil and gas drilling in more than 80 percent of the country's coastal waters."
- govsucks, on 06/11/2008, -6/+31Title should read: Republicans save Americans millions in taxation.
- brad3378, on 06/11/2008, -1/+25Agreed.
Taxing American Oil companies helps foreign oil companies.
Should the role of government be to punish oil companies for being headquartered in the USA? - ibnabouna, on 06/11/2008, -6/+30This bill was ridiculous. It was touted as an "energy bill," but it did nothing for the average American other than slapping oil companies with more taxes. As one senator said, this bill was simply election year politics. The Democrats are taking advantage of the present energy crisis for their own gain and to make Republicans look bad. Shame on them for using our misery as election bait. Let's focus on passing a real energy bill that will help all Americans and not simply play to their emotions.
- irvman21, on 06/11/2008, -25/+48My favorite part of this genius liberal plan is that while wanting to reduce our dependence on foreign oil immediately, the first step in this plan is to eliminate the subsidies for domestic oil production.
- rabidg00se, on 06/11/2008, -2/+25This comment thread is mostly made up of a combination of the conservative wing of the site and the more independent thinkers (be they liberal- or conservative-leaning). As an undecided (but slightly left of center on most issues) voter, I get a huge kick out of the irony of all the mindless pro-Obama/anti-McCain people screaming at conservatives to "think for themselves," and the mindless anti-everything people answering in kind.
Man, I love Digg. - andywebb95, on 06/11/2008, -6/+28I read pretty much the same article on Yahoo...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080611/ap_on_go_co/co ...
And I am not too angry about the Republicans blocking this one as it would probably harm prices rather than help.
But I am pissed about them blocking this (mentioned in the same article):
"Shortly after the oil tax vote, Republicans blocked a second proposal that would extend tax breaks that have either expired or are scheduled to end this year for wind, solar and other alternative energy development, and for the promotion of energy efficiency and conservation. Again Democrats couldn't get the 60 votes to overcome a GOP filibuster."
This makes no sense to me. - MrFurious2k, on 06/11/2008, -0/+21If anyone is making "windfall profits", it's the government. Some local/state governments don't even have a fixed amount of taxes per gallon, they use a percentage. So as the cost per gallon increases, so does the tax. The government has no investment in producing the product; it just benefits on its consumption. So while it might seem somewhat cathartic to punish the oil companies for having such an expensive (but necessary) product, it shows an amazing lack of ignorance on the part of the Congressional Democrats. Additionally, it’s their policies of preventing drilling and do nothing “green” initiatives that are helping to increase costs (and increase speculation of shortages).
Apparently those unable to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. If you’ll recall during the Carter administration, a couple of things were tried that failed absolutely miserably. First, the large taxation of the oil company’s profits did a few things. First, it increased the amount that US oil companies (which are relatively small compared to overseas oil companies) charged for their product. As people have noted above, they pass on those costs to the consumer. Second, since their product was more expensive than their overseas competitors, we increased our exports of foreign oil (going from about 8% to 16% of our supply) making us more energy dependent.
Additionally, the Carter administration placed price controls on gasoline which created shortages. As everyone knows from your economics classes that a certain amount will be supplied at a certain price. If you artificially mess with the supply/demand curve, you’ll create potential shortages (as with gasoline in the 70’s) or too much supply (like the housing bubble now).
The Congress’s insistence on making poor economic decisions may feel good, but they’re absolutely horrible from an economic point of view. The Congress’s poor decisions in the past are coming back to bite us. So much for the Democrat’s promise in 2006 of dealing with high gas prices back then. Since they’ve taken office, gas has almost doubled.
Part of the solution is to immediately allow drilling domestically. This would have a couple of effects:
1. It would increase supply
2. It would cause speculators to start selling (instead of holding) because of the speculation that supply is increasing thereby reducing prices
3. We’re more environmentally sound about getting oil than some of the foreign companies only 60 miles off our coast that are drilling.
On that last point (3), does anyone know if they could be draining our reserves by being so close to our coast? What if the deposit flows beyond our borders? - unpolloloco, on 06/11/2008, -0/+21Wouldn't that give foreign oil companies more of a foothold in the US? I thought giving foreign companies advantages over American companies was a bad idea?
- unpolloloco, on 06/11/2008, -0/+20and that'll help so much with the cost of gas.....they'll just pass the repair costs back onto consumers
- DaDrake, on 06/11/2008, -2/+21Because using the "rich" as a scapegoat is as easy as blaming the jews in the 1930s Germany. It isn't a solution, but it keeps you in power by giving false hope.
- inigomntoya, on 06/11/2008, -2/+21wow - letting states decide for themselves about how they want to use their own land?! What a novel idea!
- inactive, on 06/11/2008, -0/+18Obama fans are no longer physically capable of seeing ANY flaws in their candidate.
Its called love, have you ever had a friend fall for a girl everyone knew was a slut but he just couldnt see it or DIDNT KNOW just like Scotty?
Whats odd is we keep TELLING Obama fans this and they still DONT KNOW. - SeventhSon, on 06/11/2008, -3/+21Dugg for spelling dig as digg.
- synapz, on 06/11/2008, -0/+17@ozydingo: Why do you feel that this is a good, moral, or ethical idea? Why is it "okay" for big brother to come and tell me that I must do this or that, or he will take from me more of what I earn? How is this fair? This is not a free society, this is a society of coercion and threat; a society where people compete for government largess instead of in the marketplace.
- jerwin, on 06/11/2008, -3/+19Yes, you are missing the fact that Obama has hope for a better future through change...
Whatever the f*ck that means. - akphidelt, on 06/11/2008, -5/+21For those of you who keep talking about record profits, you need a little lesson in business. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft are all about 10%+ more profitable then these "record" oil companies. Just because you have $400+ billion in market cap and you break a record in profit doesn't mean anything unless you start breaking record profit margins. I say we start taxing the hell out of useless companies like Google and Yahoo that provide no tangible benefit to the world!
- Chahrlie5, on 06/11/2008, -2/+17They should just call it "***** consumers in the ass tax"
- YZBot, on 06/11/2008, -0/+15The government has basically said 'no' to more oil development before reasonable alternatives were available. In light of this fact they continue to say 'no' to oil development. Just brilliant. I get a kick out of how the politicians help create the problem, blame it on the oil companies, and millions of sheeple actually buy into that crap.
- inactive, on 06/11/2008, -0/+15That about sums it up.
- Barackalypse, on 06/11/2008, -2/+16The fact that alternative power requires a subsidy to even be worth considering should tell you that it isn't economically effective yet, and the government really shouldn't be paying people to do things that aren't economically effective (just look what happened when they did that with ethanol).
- GenericFoster, on 06/11/2008, -1/+15If the bill did pass, we're supposed to expect the government to somehow lower gas prices somehow with the taxes they collected? Yeah right.
- minoss, on 06/11/2008, -0/+14For reference, this is what every company does when they are taxed. You cannot tax a company into unprofitability.
- inactive, on 06/11/2008, -1/+15Don't believe anything you read on huffingtonpost.com. It's nothing more than a ultra-liberal propaganda site. You'd be better off reading a Garfield comic strip.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 460 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is