T1B

They had the baseball players testify under oath, but protected the oil company execs from having to do the same.

I'm sure those execs were completely honest & forthcoming. :hugemeds:

Not trying to go Detard here, but you got a link?

Yeah, that testifying under oath really worked for those baseball players.


go fuck yourself.

Rush played a clip where the committee chair, Domenici(?), wouldn't allow a Democratic committee member bring a motion to swear in the oil executives.

BSmack wrote:Not trying to go Detard here, but you got a link?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20051110/bs ... 119feature

I read a different article about the procedings that said that the reason they didn't want them sworn in was because they wanted complete answers to their questions and not some measured legalese that was void of any real content. Besides, though it was a bit contentious at times, this seemed to have more of an informal nature to it.

Yeah, I mean why should you have to promise to tell the truth when it's just a friendly little get-together amongst old buddies?

Mikey, even had they taken the oath and said what they said yesterday, you and the Democrats would still be calling them liars and crooks.

So wtf is your point?

It was political grandstanding and nothing more.

You people can whine about the tax breaks that both Democrats and Republicans have written into the tax code all you want, but it has nothing to do with the price of oil or the price of gasoline.

It's this argument that exposes you as intellectual cripples who rely on the crutch of emotion rather than reasoned thought.

It's also why we don't see you fucking idiots demanding further tax incentives or even government subsidies when the oil companies lose massive amounts of $$.

It's also the reason why you idiots do not condemn other companies like Bank of America, Merck, Google, Eli Lilly, Coca Cola, Intel, and Yahoo who have recently seen profits increase more quickly than oil companies.

Now fuck off and let the adults handle the situation.

Mikey wrote:Yeah, I mean why should you have to promise to tell the truth when it's just a friendly little get-together amongst old buddies?

That's pretty much exactly what it was. There was no formality to the procedures, as this was basically just a question and answer session.

Personally, I think that oil company execs are king slimebags who have brilliantly manipulated our system to their advantage. Even so, I think that speaking to them without putting them under oath was fine. Had they been put under oath, I don't see that there would have been any difference in their responses, as most of the questions were broad.

Let Congress audit the oil companies' books, as they plan to do, and put the execs under oath when they're asking specific questions which require specific answers.

Personally, I think that oil company execs are king slimebags who have brilliantly manipulated our system to their advantage.

Yeah, they've compelled us to live where we choose and choose what vehicle we will drive. These evil guys also compel OPEC to cap production so that millions of commodity traders will bid up the price of a barrel of oil, too. These guys also set local gasoline prices, too, right?

Get the fuck over the wild conspiracy theories.

And, hey, why aren't you people condemning Bank of America, Yahoo, Coca-Cola, etc. for their outrageous profits that far exceed those of the oil companies??

Oh, and why not also propose government subsidies when the oil companies lose their assess?

Intellectual fucking cripples.

Diego in Seattle wrote:They had the baseball players testify under oath, but protected the oil company execs from having to do the same.

I'm sure those execs were completely honest & forthcoming. :hugemeds:

grass is green, water is wet, marcus allen knows sports, etc :idea:

DrDetroit wrote:And, hey, why aren't you people condemning Bank of America, Yahoo, Coca-Cola, etc. for their outrageous profits that far exceed those of the oil companies??

When Vanilla Coke becomes a necessity of modern life for every man woman and child, you'll see me advocating price regulation of Coke products. Untill then, you can shove those apples and oranges up your ass.

DrDetroit wrote:Mikey, even had they taken the oath and said what they said yesterday, you and the Democrats would still be calling them liars and crooks.

And they still would be.

So wtf is your point?

That's my point, asshole.

It was political grandstanding and nothing more.

You people can whine about the tax breaks that both Democrats and Republicans have written into the tax code all you want, but it has nothing to do with the price of oil or the price of gasoline.

It's this argument that exposes you as intellectual cripples who rely on the crutch of emotion rather than reasoned thought.

It's also why we don't see you fucking idiots demanding further tax incentives or even government subsidies when the oil companies lose massive amounts of $$.

It's also the reason why you idiots do not condemn other companies like Bank of America, Merck, Google, Eli Lilly, Coca Cola, Intel, and Yahoo who have recently seen profits increase more quickly than oil companies.
wtf are you blathering about here?

Hey queerbait, why do you insist on mischaracterizing my posts and putting words in my mouth? I've never "condemed" oil companies for making a profit. For one thing, they don't set the price of oil, OPEC does. If they make a windfall based on the price of oil alone then that's just their good fortune. I've been saying all along, if you don't like the price of gasoline then use less.

What I do object to is two things.

First, the huge subsidies and tax breaks being given to big oil in the face of the huge profits they've been making not only in the most recent quarter but for the past several years. Aren't you supposed to be some kind of a free market wonk? More like a fucking hypocrite. They should be plowing their big profits into exploration and R&D to ensure their future profitability rather than taking billions more from the tax payer.

Second thing is their lies about the nation's refining capacity, which has at least as much effect on the price of gas than as price of crude oil does. They keep crying "Well we haven't been able to build any new refineries in the past 25 years, and it's all the envoronmentalists' fault. That's why gas is so expensive. Give us some more tax breaks and suspend all the envronmental laws and we'll build some new ones!"

What a load of horseshit. True there haven't been any new ones built. But the oil companies have closed over 100 refineries in the past 50 years, mostly for the express reason of reducing capacity and driving the price of gasoline up. So, their complaints of not being able to build new ones are completely hollow. In truth, they should all be brought up on anti-trust charges for collusion in rigging the price of gasoline.

Now fuck off and let the adults handle the situation.

Now fuck off an try to pull the plunger handle out of your asshole.

BSmack wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:And, hey, why aren't you people condemning Bank of America, Yahoo, Coca-Cola, etc. for their outrageous profits that far exceed those of the oil companies??

When Vanilla Coke becomes a necessity of modern life for every man woman and child, you'll see me advocating price regulation of Coke products. Untill then, you can shove those apples and oranges up your ass.

I see, so you are similarly advocating government subsidies for the oil industry to cover their losses, too, right?

Of course not, and hence, you're exposed as an intellectual cripple relying more on emotion than reasonable and rational thought.

DrDetroit wrote:I see, so you are similarly advocating government subsidies for the oil industry to cover their losses, too, right?

Maybe just once you could STFU and let someone answer the question before trying to put words in their mouth?

Anyway, if the price of gas was regulated, I would be all for guarantees that would help the companies through hard times. But it is not, so here we are getting fucked.

Mikey wrote:And they still would be.

Exactly...so why even bother with the political grandstanding? Why take time away from imposing US labor and enviro laws on African nations?

That's my point, asshole.

And you, again, demonstrate that you have zero good faith in this argument.

wtf are you blathering about here?

Just demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of the crusade against oil profits.

Hey queerbait, why do you insist on mischaracterizing my posts and putting words in my mouth? I've never "condemed" oil companies for making a profit. For one thing, they don't set the price of oil, OPEC does. If they make a windfall based on the price of oil alone then that's just their good fortune. I've been saying all along, if you don't like the price of gasoline then use less.

I apologize if I improperly included you in the diatribe. RACK your point, btw.

What I do object to is two things.

First, the huge subsidies and tax breaks being given to big oil in the face of the huge profits they've been making not only in the most recent quarter but for the past several years. Aren't you supposed to be some kind of a free market wonk? More like a fucking hypocrite. They should be plowing their big profits into exploration and R&D to ensure their future profitability rather than taking billions more from the tax payer.

Have you ever seen me supporting those tax incentives? No.

Have you seen me arguing that the government should not be picking economic winners (i.e., not subsidizing some industries and some firms)? Yes.

I'm glad we have cleared this up.

Second thing is their lies about the nation's refining capacity, which has at least as much effect on the price of gas than as price of crude oil does. They keep crying "Well we haven't been able to build any new refineries in the past 25 years, and it's all the envoronmentalists' fault. That's why gas is so expensive. Give us some more tax breaks and suspend all the envronmental laws and we'll build some new ones!"

I agree. But that does not eiliminate the fact that refining capacity is tight right now and has been for several years or that gasoline demand continues to expand despite the limited ability to expand the supply.

But think about your own investment decisions. The oil companies have no incentive to invest in new refineries. Enviro regulations do make it economically unattractive to invest the several years of time necessary to apply for and satisfy those regulations, locate the new refinery, and ultimately build it. Add to that the uncertainly of the permanence of gasoline as the primary vehicle fuel. That's two big disincentives. Are those not reasonable considerations? I think so.

But the oil companies have closed over 100 refineries in the past 50 years, mostly for the express reason of reducing capacity and driving the price of gasoline up. So, their complaints of not being able to build new ones are completely hollow. In truth, they should all be brought up on anti-trust charges for collusion in rigging the price of gasoline.

I get that...however, lets look at reality. Over 100 refineries have not been closed this year, in the last two years, or even last 5 years. Yet, we've seen only a gradual increase in gas prices over the last five years and only realized spikes the last two years.

So while I understand the refineries have been closed, the effect on gasoline prices appears minimal. Is that not a reasonable conclusion?

BSmack wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:I see, so you are similarly advocating government subsidies for the oil industry to cover their losses, too, right?

Maybe just once you could STFU and let someone answer the question before trying to put words in their mouth?

Anyway, if the price of gas was regulated, I would be all for guarantees that would help the companies through hard times. But it is not, so here we are getting fucked.

Um, what happened the last time the government imposed price caps?

What happened the last time the government imposed a windfall tax on gasoline profits?

DrDetroit wrote:Um, what happened the last time the government imposed price caps?

You're refering to the Nixon era price controls?

What happened the last time the government imposed a windfall tax on gasoline profits?

I seem to recall 10 years of very low gas prices. Or did you miss the 80s?

Yeah, I am referring to the Nixon-era price caps that resulted in gasoline shortages.

Re: the windfall taxes enacted in 1980:

Herbert Stein – head of the Nixon Administration’s Council of Economic Advisers and an opponent of the price controls – observed that the
Nixon price controls on domestic oil had the effect of “encouraging oil imports, increasing our dependence and making it easier for OPEC to charge us a high price.”

According to analysis by the Congressional Research Service, the windfall profits tax reduced domestic oil production in an estimated range of between 3 percent and 6 percent annually. It increased annual oil imports from between 8 percent and 16 percent. The tax, created large compliance costs, andby 1987 and 1988 yielded almost no government
revenue.

Windfall taxes are not imposed to control gasoline prices and they didn't have an impact on the price of gasoline during the 1980s.

BTW - when has a tax ever made something cheaper?

DrDetroit is your troll?

DrDetroit wrote:Yeah, I am referring to the Nixon-era price caps that resulted in gasoline shortages.

Forgetting about the oil embargo?

Re: the windfall taxes enacted in 1980:

Herbert Stein – head of the Nixon Administration’s Council of Economic Advisers and an opponent of the price controls – observed that the
Nixon price controls on domestic oil had the effect of “encouraging oil imports, increasing our dependence and making it easier for OPEC to charge us a high price.”

No, cheap, big ass gas guzzling cars and the emergence of the baby boomers into the marketplace made it possible for OPEC to charge more. They also got big time run from that pesky little embargo that helped put the brakes on an already weak ecomomy.

According to analysis by the Congressional Research Service, the windfall profits tax reduced domestic oil production in an estimated range of between 3 percent and 6 percent annually. It increased annual oil imports from between 8 percent and 16 percent. The tax, created large compliance costs, andby 1987 and 1988 yielded almost no government
revenue.

Windfall taxes are not imposed to control gasoline prices and they didn't have an impact on the price of gasoline during the 1980s.

The proof is in the pudding. What were gas prices in the 80s?

BTW - when has a tax ever made something cheaper?

When the tax is used to curb unreasonable profit.

The very concept of a winfall profits tax precludes it from being assessed if prices are low. If prices are high and no excess profit is shown, no tax is paid.

Sinking in yet?

Forgetting about the oil embargo?

Uh, no, price caps followed the oil embargo, dolt.

No, cheap, big ass gas guzzling cars and the emergence of the baby boomers into the marketplace made it possible for OPEC to charge more. They also got big time run from that pesky little embargo that helped put the brakes on an already weak ecomomy.

Shut your mouth...you're in position to debate, let alone contradict the conclusions of Stein, the CEA, or anyone else.

The proof is in the pudding. What were gas prices in the 80s?

There is no relationship, idiot.

When the tax is used to curb unreasonable profit.

Dumbass, the tax is incurred after the sale of gasoline...

Again, a tax NEVER reduces the price of anything. It only reduces the amount of what is being taxed.

The very concept of a winfall profits tax precludes it from being assessed if prices are low. If prices are high and no excess profit is shown, no tax is paid.

This is really funny shit. Dumbass, if prices are low, consumption will increase. What do you not get about this?

This is why price caps did not work and resulted in gasoline shortages. Prices are consumption signals. When prices are low, consumption expands, when prices are high conservation results. Price caps artificially keep prices low, hence, encouraging consumption. This is why we experienced long lines and shortages following the imposition of gasoline price caps in the 70s.

BTW - just wtf is an "excess" profit? I love the fact that you arrogant pieces of shit believe that you know what a reasonable profit is.

So when are you going to demand price caps and windfall profit taxes on firms like Bank of America? The banking system is a national strategic interest is it not? When are you going demand price caps on windfall taxes on Intel and Yahoo and Google and Microsoft? According to Democrats it's of vital national interest that people have personal computers and that children have access to the internet. And these companies earn even more profit than the oil firms.

You are not and you will not demand as such because you are intellectual cripples. Period.

DrDetroit wrote:Uh, no, price caps followed the oil embargo, dolt.

Nixon instituted wage and price controls in August of 1971. The arab oil embargo was a response to US support of Isreal in the 1973 war.

Is it too much to ask that you know what the fuck you are talking about?

No, I was referring to the price caps imposed in August 1973 and the EPAA. Yes, I am aware that price controls had been imposed prior to the embargo, but they had been short-term in nature or voluntary.