T1B

Papa Willie wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:just so long as campaign finance reform gets done

no need for congressmen to whine for their careers to oil companies to finance their campaigns just so the congressperson can work more for the oil company and less for the costituents.

none of the issues staring america down will be properly addressed so long as deep pockets are calling the shots.

Amen.

Proof that Bacey isn't a liberal.

ADAM wrote:C'mon people just think.....

If Obama-rama is elected....

A "Roscoe's Chicken & Waffles" on every corner!

Papa Willie wrote: You've got a point, but I'm thinking that in England, each person running gets like $10k in campaign money. THAT is how you do it. Let about 8-10 people run and make people actually use their fucking heads as opposed to letting CNN do it for them.

_Porter_ wrote:They said that in the good 'ol USA, the first ammendment protects campaign contributions as "free speech". That's right, now money = words. Brilliant!

Let's get the strict interpreters on the bench to limit contributions to the previous limits of three negresses, a goat cart of sound construction and ten pinches of snuff.

And wolfman, part of what Obama wants to do is make the campaign contributions very, very transparent. I personally don't think thats enough.

Senate GOP blocks windfall taxes on Big Oil

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer 57 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Saved by Senate Republicans, big oil companies dodged an attempt Tuesday to slap them with a windfall profits tax and take away billions of dollars in tax breaks in response to the record gasoline prices that have the nation fuming.


GOP senators shoved aside the Democratic proposal, arguing that punishing Big Oil won't do a thing to lower the $4-a-gallon-price of gasoline that is sending economic waves across the country. High prices at the pump are threatening everything from summer vacations to Meals on Wheels deliveries to the elderly.

The Democratic energy package would have imposed a 25 percent tax on any "unreasonable" profits of the five largest U.S. oil companies, which together made $36 billion during the first three months of the year. It also would have given the government more power to address oil market speculation, opened the way for antitrust actions against countries belonging to the OPEC oil cartel, and made energy price gouging a federal crime.

"Americans are furious about what's going on," declared Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. He said they want Congress to do something about oil company profits and the "orgy of speculation" on oil markets.

But Republican leaders said the Democrats' plan would do harm rather than good — and they kept the legislation from being brought up for debate and amendments.

On world markets, oil prices retreated a bit Tuesday but remained above $131 a barrel. Gasoline prices edged even higher to a nationwide record average of $4.04 a gallon.

At the Capitol, Democratic leaders needed 60 votes and they got only 51 senators' support, including seven Republicans who bucked their party leaders. Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, a state tied closely to the oil industry, was the only Democrat opposing the bill.

"We are hurting as a country. We're hurting individually as Americans ... and the other side says, `Do nothing. Don't even debate the issue,'" complained Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

"Average citizens are scratching their heads and saying, what's wrong with Washington," said Schumer.

GOP opponents argued that little was to be gained by imposing new taxes on the five U.S. oil giants: Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., Shell Oil Co., BP America Inc. and ConocoPhilips Co.

While these companies may be huge, they don't set world oil prices and raising their taxes would discourage domestic oil production, the Republicans said of the Democrats' plan.

"In the middle of what some are calling the biggest energy shock in a generation ... they proposed as a solution, of all things, a windfall profits tax," Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky chided the Democrats. He called their proposal "a gimmick" that would not lower gasoline prices and only hold back domestic oil production.

"The American people are clamoring for relief at the pump," agreed Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., but "they will get exactly what they don't want" under the Democrats' plan — higher prices and an increase in oil imports.

The bill's supporters argued that their proposal was different from the windfall profits taxes of the early 1980s that thwarted domestic production and led to a rise in imports. The oil companies could avoid the tax by using their "windfall" to push alternative energy programs or refinery expansions, they said.

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.

Neither Republican presidential candidate John McCain nor his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, were in Washington to cast votes on the energy issue on Tuesday.

Obama, in a statement, said Republicans had "turned a blind eye to the plight of America's working families" by refusing to take up the energy legislation. Obama has supported additional taxes on the oil companies. McCain is opposed to such taxes and has proposed across-the-aboard tax reductions for industry as a way to help the economy.

Election-year politics hung over the debate. Democrats know their energy package has no chance of becoming law. Even it were to overcome a Senate GOP filibuster — a longshot at best — and the House acted, President Bush has made clear he would veto it.

But there was nothing to lose by taking on Big Oil when people are paying $60 to $100 to fill up their gas tanks.

The oil companies have been frequent targets of Congress. Twice this year, top executives of the largest U.S. oil producers have been brought before congressional committees to explain their huge profits. And each time the executives urged lawmakers to resist punitive tax measures, blaming high costs on global supply and demand.

In addition to the proposed windfall profits tax, the Democrats' bill also would have rescinded tax breaks that are expected to save the oil companies $17 billion over the next 10 years. The money would have been used to provide tax incentives for producers of wind, solar and other alternative energy sources as well as for energy conservation.

In an attempt to dampen oil market speculation, the legislation would require traders to put up more collateral in the energy futures markets and would provide authority to regulate U.S.-based trading in foreign markets. And it would make oil and gas price gouging a federal crime, with stiff penalties of up to $5 million during a presidentially declared energy emergency.

After Tuesday's defeat, Democrats did not rule out pushing the issue again.

"This was politics at its worst," complained Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. "This was a refusal to debate the biggest problem confronting the American people. ... That takes nerve."

mvscal wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:36 BILLION dollars in profits in 3 MONTHS is reasonable?

Is it unreasonable? Who makes that determination and under what legal authority is it made?
What are their margins? Do you even know?

Why would this do "More harm than good"?

If you think raising taxes on a product will reduce the price and create more of it, you are fucking moron.

Tom In VA wrote:Of course they should tax the hell out of the oil companies. It's unfair, they haven't earned it, the people who invested them haven't risked money at all...

Mister Bushice wrote:and in late breaking "save the poor oil companies from losing money" news:

Senate GOP blocks windfall taxes on Big Oil

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer 57 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Saved by Senate Republicans, big oil companies dodged an attempt Tuesday to slap them with a windfall profits tax and take away billions of dollars in tax breaks in response to the record gasoline prices that have the nation fuming.


GOP senators shoved aside the Democratic proposal, arguing that punishing Big Oil won't do a thing to lower the $4-a-gallon-price of gasoline that is sending economic waves across the country. High prices at the pump are threatening everything from summer vacations to Meals on Wheels deliveries to the elderly.

The Democratic energy package would have imposed a 25 percent tax on any "unreasonable" profits of the five largest U.S. oil companies, which together made $36 billion during the first three months of the year. It also would have given the government more power to address oil market speculation, opened the way for antitrust actions against countries belonging to the OPEC oil cartel, and made energy price gouging a federal crime.

"Americans are furious about what's going on," declared Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. He said they want Congress to do something about oil company profits and the "orgy of speculation" on oil markets.

But Republican leaders said the Democrats' plan would do harm rather than good — and they kept the legislation from being brought up for debate and amendments.

On world markets, oil prices retreated a bit Tuesday but remained above $131 a barrel. Gasoline prices edged even higher to a nationwide record average of $4.04 a gallon.

At the Capitol, Democratic leaders needed 60 votes and they got only 51 senators' support, including seven Republicans who bucked their party leaders. Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, a state tied closely to the oil industry, was the only Democrat opposing the bill.

"We are hurting as a country. We're hurting individually as Americans ... and the other side says, `Do nothing. Don't even debate the issue,'" complained Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

"Average citizens are scratching their heads and saying, what's wrong with Washington," said Schumer.

GOP opponents argued that little was to be gained by imposing new taxes on the five U.S. oil giants: Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., Shell Oil Co., BP America Inc. and ConocoPhilips Co.

While these companies may be huge, they don't set world oil prices and raising their taxes would discourage domestic oil production, the Republicans said of the Democrats' plan.

"In the middle of what some are calling the biggest energy shock in a generation ... they proposed as a solution, of all things, a windfall profits tax," Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky chided the Democrats. He called their proposal "a gimmick" that would not lower gasoline prices and only hold back domestic oil production.

"The American people are clamoring for relief at the pump," agreed Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., but "they will get exactly what they don't want" under the Democrats' plan — higher prices and an increase in oil imports.

The bill's supporters argued that their proposal was different from the windfall profits taxes of the early 1980s that thwarted domestic production and led to a rise in imports. The oil companies could avoid the tax by using their "windfall" to push alternative energy programs or refinery expansions, they said.

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.

Neither Republican presidential candidate John McCain nor his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, were in Washington to cast votes on the energy issue on Tuesday.

Obama, in a statement, said Republicans had "turned a blind eye to the plight of America's working families" by refusing to take up the energy legislation. Obama has supported additional taxes on the oil companies. McCain is opposed to such taxes and has proposed across-the-aboard tax reductions for industry as a way to help the economy.

Election-year politics hung over the debate. Democrats know their energy package has no chance of becoming law. Even it were to overcome a Senate GOP filibuster — a longshot at best — and the House acted, President Bush has made clear he would veto it.

But there was nothing to lose by taking on Big Oil when people are paying $60 to $100 to fill up their gas tanks.

The oil companies have been frequent targets of Congress. Twice this year, top executives of the largest U.S. oil producers have been brought before congressional committees to explain their huge profits. And each time the executives urged lawmakers to resist punitive tax measures, blaming high costs on global supply and demand.

In addition to the proposed windfall profits tax, the Democrats' bill also would have rescinded tax breaks that are expected to save the oil companies $17 billion over the next 10 years. The money would have been used to provide tax incentives for producers of wind, solar and other alternative energy sources as well as for energy conservation.

In an attempt to dampen oil market speculation, the legislation would require traders to put up more collateral in the energy futures markets and would provide authority to regulate U.S.-based trading in foreign markets. And it would make oil and gas price gouging a federal crime, with stiff penalties of up to $5 million during a presidentially declared energy emergency.

After Tuesday's defeat, Democrats did not rule out pushing the issue again.

"This was politics at its worst," complained Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. "This was a refusal to debate the biggest problem confronting the American people. ... That takes nerve."

Nice job, Bush administration. Way to pave the way for your boy Mccain.

That makes good sense. Don't punish the oil companies that are profiting to an insane level from this price run up, punish the consumer.

36 BILLION dollars in profits in 3 MONTHS is reasonable? Why would this do "More harm than good"?

How about we windfall profit tax, then reduce the taxes consumers pay on the other end equally. The oil company doesn't profit excessively, the government doesn't profit excessively, and we get some what more of a status quo at the pumps,enabling people to go on vacations, make trips, prevent truckers from going out of business, IOW it will HELP THE ECONOMY.

Sort of like the tax rebate checks concept.

War Wagon wrote:
Good point, Tom. Afterall, who "owns" the oil companies?

titlover wrote: if 60-80 extra dollars in extra gas expense 'prevents' you from going on vacation. you really just don't want to go on vacation.

mvscal wrote: If you think raising taxes on a product will reduce the price and create more of it, you are fucking moron.

The Big Pickle wrote:I was a pricing analyst in Actuarial at a MAJOR insurance company and I can ASSURE you that taxes are passed on to the consumer. It was my job to look at past loses, calutate our expenses which included TAXES and determine the appropriate rate to charge to insure a specific profit.

Some of you may remember a blunder I made with the South Dakota Home Owners insurance where I mistakeningly increased rates 40 percent when I should have reduced rates 40 percent. We had RECORD profits that year and I was awarded "Team Player of the Year" and given a substantial raise. It's funny...I fukkked up and the company made record profits...How many people can say that?

Hey...as a side note...I was on Alan Colmes Radio Graffitti at 11:58 last night and got in a great..............


WHITE POWER 1488!


RACK ME FOR BEING ON NATIONAL RADIO AND BEING HEARD BY ABOUT 30 MILLION PEOPLE.

WHITE POWER
1488
FUKKK YOU, KNIGG3ERS!

Mister Bushice wrote:

mvscal wrote: If you think raising taxes on a product will reduce the price and create more of it, you are fucking moron.

You're not raising taxes on a product, shit head, you're taxing the excess profit made by the oil companies. when gas prices for the consumer shot thru the roof at an average well above the cost per barrel to the producers. And yet, Bush waived Billions of dollars in royalties from oil companies in 2006, and we're STILL fucking subsidizing these assholes with our tax money, PLUS they have tax incentives on top of that. All told they get tax breaks that range in the billions per year.

So don't give me any shit about them being allowed to "make a profit". Not when a fucking gun is being held to my wallet.

titlover wrote:if 60-80 extra dollars in extra gas expense 'prevents' you from going on vacation. you really just don't want to go on vacation.

BSmack wrote:Riddle me this mv. If there is a supply issue, why are there no 70s style gas lines, no stations running out of gas and no rationing?

This latest price hike has nothing to do with supply and everything to do with traders and oil companies gaming the markets.

BSmack wrote: This latest price hike has nothing to do with supply and everything to do with traders and oil companies gaming the markets.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:At $1.81 a gallon as compared to $4.10 a gallon, I'd be saving $39 a week on gas. That's over $2,000 a year. And I haven't even figured in my wife's commuting expenses, driving on weekends, etc.

mvscal wrote: Since we're exchanging riddles here, go ahead and walk me through the scenario where windfall profits tax on the oil industry results in lower prices at the pump.

mvscal wrote:
Since we're exchanging riddles here, go ahead and walk me through the scenario where windfall profits tax on the oil industry results in lower prices at the pump.

BSmack wrote:Riddle me this mv. If there is a supply issue, why are there no 70s style gas lines, no stations running out of gas and no rationing?

This latest price hike has nothing to do with supply and everything to do with traders and oil companies gaming the markets.

titlover wrote:

BSmack wrote:Riddle me this mv. If there is a supply issue, why are there no 70s style gas lines, no stations running out of gas and no rationing?

This latest price hike has nothing to do with supply and everything to do with traders and oil companies gaming the markets.

cuz there isn't a retard peanut farmer in the White house to slap a price control on gas? you want long lines and rationing again? go ahead and put a cap on gas prices. this country would be fucked.

Bizzarofelice wrote:I haven't seen any of the supporters of this bill actually say where the tax will help the public directly with gas. Can't tell if its a vague notion of punishing those who are cornholing the American public, or if there is an unspoken plan to take windfall tax money and use it to offset taxes lost when people started purchasing less gas.

Just seems like more problems heaped upon already existing ones.

_Porter_ wrote:

mvscal wrote:

_Porter_ wrote: All of these things, and many others, have made the US military not only look vulnerable, but ultimately beatable in a long-term war.

Papa Willie wrote:

_Porter_ wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:I haven't seen any of the supporters of this bill actually say where the tax will help the public directly with gas. Can't tell if its a vague notion of punishing those who are cornholing the American public, or if there is an unspoken plan to take windfall tax money and use it to offset taxes lost when people started purchasing less gas.

Just seems like more problems heaped upon already existing ones.

Probably the best, most-concise, non-partisan explanation I've heard of the situation yet. Doesn't that get you a two-week ban from this place?

No - that's Fag7 that does that.