Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 255

• 0%

  simonsez2 months, 3 weeks ago

  They knew well in advance it would not pass, so they postured on it.

  They want you to think they "tried", but they knew it was a bad idea to begin with.

  Reply

  64 Replies

  • 0%

    Beau78902 months, 3 weeks ago

    There's a difference between knowing in advance it may not have the votes and posturing.

    I've heard quite a few Republicans out here say the Democrats in Congress don't even try to do anything. Now they've tried to pass legislation to help with the cost of gas, and the Republicans blocked it.

    Reply

    55 Replies

    • 0%

      libsRfunny2 months, 3 weeks ago

      "Now they've tried to pass legislation to help with the cost of gas, and the Republicans blocked it."

      News Flash: Taxes INCREASE prices and stifle investment as well as economic growth. You liberals just never will figure that out, will you?

      Reply

      49 Replies

      • 0%

        Beau78902 months, 3 weeks ago

        Sigh. Do I have to explain this again?

        If you haven't noticed, the government has been spending WAY more than it takes in since Bush was elected.

        Taxes pay for the government's expenditures.

        You neocons will never figure that out, will you?

        Reply

        20 Replies

        • 0%

          Lurch2 months, 3 weeks ago

          Libs conveniently ignores that it is typically the govt that leads early investment in new technologies, such as the Internets (sic) or the drugs we take to get and hopefully stay healthy.

          And he like all cons thinks that fiscal accountability starts the day a Dem enters the WH and ends the day the Dem leaves office.

          They have no idea how to pay for their unfunded spending in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter, except to steal it from our children and grand-children because they are too young to protect their own interests. Republicans are just cowards when it comes down to the truth, particularly about taxation and fiscal responsibility.

          Reply

          18 Replies

          • 0%

            libsRfunny2 months, 3 weeks ago

            "the govt that leads early investment"

            Clearly, you have no idea how an economy works. Pull your head out of the sand. Private firms like Pfizer develop drugs. If by "gov't" you meant the military led development of the internet, then you'd be right.

            Idiot liberals think taxing businesses means more money for government. It doesn't. It means less economic activity, fewer jobs and less gov't revenue. When taxes are reduced, economic activity rises -- and so do Gov't revenues.

            What taxing oil companies has to do with Iraq I have no idea, other than liberals are stupid. If you think gas prices are high now, guess what will happen if gov't taxation increases.

            Reply

            16 Replies

            • 0%

              Tangent0012 months, 3 weeks ago

              What does oil have to do with Iraq? What, are you trying to be ironic?

              Reply

              13 Replies

              • 0%

                Bopi3652 months, 3 weeks ago

                All of this is absolute BS

                Check the facts, the oil companies are using their windfall profits to buy back stock, they spend just enough on new exploration and just enough on alternative energy development to make themselves look legit and use the vast majority to help themselves go private in order to keep more of their profits.

                We are giving them 20 billion in tax breaks and they are using the money to make themselves richer.

                Nothing new here.

                idiot puks

                Reply

                11 Replies

                • 0%

                  Locky122 months, 3 weeks ago

                  And how is the oil companies just giving the money to the government going to lower the price of gas?

                  They're just going to pass the cost of the tax on to us!

                  This is simple supply and demand.

                  Drill! Let's drill in the Dakotas, off the California shelf, in Alaska. Let's get the oil-- OUR OIL ON OUR LAND to fulfill our needs. We know it's there, and if congress doesn't act soon, there'll be a revolt.

                  Reply

                  10 Replies

                  • 0%

                    thatsjustme2 months, 3 weeks ago

                    Actually, the government needs to support alternative fuel research. The oil industry is a huge beast, we can kill it by not using it at all. Oh, and save some of our natural habitats and wildlife to boot.

                    Reply

                    1 Reply

                    • 0%

                      Locky122 months, 3 weeks ago

                      The oil industry provides a service to us.

                      I don't exactly share your enthusiasm for "killing" it.

                      Reply
                  • 0%

                    BigBadJohn6662 months, 3 weeks ago

                    Drill! Let's drill in the Dakotas, off the California shelf, in Alaska. Let's get the oil-- OUR OIL ON OUR LAND to fulfill our needs. We know it's there, and if congress doesn't act soon, there'll be a revolt.

                    Yes, now if only we could get the Dumbocrats to agree to this.

                    Reply

                    7 Replies

                    • 0%

                      Bopi3652 months, 3 weeks ago

                      Thats right consume ,spend ,drill, consume,spend some more

                      I've got a full size pickup that needs fillin

                      eeeeyyyyhaaaa

                      Reply

                      2 Replies

                      • 0%

                        DropkickaLib2 months, 3 weeks ago

                        Actually, GM will have the all electric Volt available in the next couple of years. More efficient vehicles are coming, we just need affordable oil in the meantime.

                        Reply
                      • 0%

                        thatsjustme2 months, 3 weeks ago

                        Sell your darned pickup and buy a horse. Trust me, in the long run atleast you can reuse the fuel you fed the horse...what you put in the tank of that truck, not so much.

                        Reply
                    • 0%

                      thatsjustme2 months, 3 weeks ago

                      Uh, NOT!!! You can't go poking holes in the earth and pulling out every last drop of fossil fuel left in it. Leave it there, help us help ourselves. (Stop feeding the beast) You can not possibly think that you can make anything better by allowing the consumption of oil to maintain at its previous rate. I realize the the Earth is this huge ball that just floats around in outer space like a rock. But, did any of you who support drilling think about the fact that WE LIVE ON IT. Did any of you calculate the damage that is being done to the earth by sucking out all of the oil. Well, it is damaging. And not just to polar bears and other wildlife either, to us. The whole point of technology is to invent better ways of doing things. Henry Ford got us all off on the right foot. Now its time to see what the left foot can do.

                      Reply

                      1 Reply

                      • 0%

                        TonyByron2 months, 3 weeks ago

                        "(Stop feeding the beast)"

                        You first ;)

                        Reply
                    • 0%

                      Locky122 months, 3 weeks ago

                      It's either drill here or send millions of dollars over there.

                      Pick one.

                      Reply

                      1 Reply

                      • 0%

                        Locky122 months, 3 weeks ago

                        It's either drill here or send millions of dollars over there.

                        Pick one.

                        Reply
              • 0%

                injest2 months, 3 weeks ago

                Lib

                "What taxing oil companies has to do with Iraq"

                Tangent001

                "What does oil have to do with Iraq? What, are you trying to be ironic?"

                Tangent001, if your going to use the bouncing ball method of reading you have to be careful to note where the ball bounces least ya miss something like

                "What taxing oil companies"

                Tangent001

                "What does (taxing ) oil have to do with Iraq?

                Nothing.

                Reply
            • 0%

              amazed2 months, 3 weeks ago

              I gave you that positive too early, libs. I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but there's really no need to be so nasty saying it!

              Reply
            • 0%

              Beau78902 months, 3 weeks ago

              libsR:

              The example I'm answering here is WAY up above this comment.

              But you said "Private firms like Pfizer develop drugs." in responding to Lurch's comment that "it is typically the government that leads early investment in new technologies."

              The government funds research Pfizer uses. (Though Pfizer gets to keep most of its profits.)

              In other words, it "leads early investment in new technologies."

              Get it?

              Reply
          • 0%

            injest2 months, 3 weeks ago

            Lurch

            "Libs conveniently ignores that it is typically the govt that leads early investment in new technologies,"

            News flash Lurch, Gasoline is NOT a NEW TECHNOLOGY.

            When ya consider Fed taxes on gas, whatever that early investment was, its been paid back in droves.

            Reply
        • 0%

          injest2 months, 3 weeks ago

          "If you haven't noticed, the government has been spending WAY more than it takes in since Bush was elected."

          Ya nailed it! BTW that's always been true.

          There has never been a "surplus". And a "projected surplus" is pie in the sky.

          In fact tween you and me I project we will have a combined income of 60 billion!

          Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

          P. J. O'Rourke

          Reply
      • 0%

        ETproductions2 months, 3 weeks ago

        LibsRfunny wrote: "News Flash: Taxes INCREASE prices and stifle investment"

        Shallow analysis as usual. The legislation only imposed a windfall tax on excess profits NOT invested toward energy independence. This was good legislation. Combine it with domestic production increases and it would be excellent legislation.

        Reply

        25 Replies

        • 0%

          nostalgia2 months, 3 weeks ago

          Didn't we already try a windfall profits tax on oil companies when Carter was president?

          How did that work out?

          I find it somewhat ironic that Congress planned a "25 percent tax on any "unreasonable" profits of the five largest U.S. oil companies"

          Now Congress thinks they have the right to determine what is "unreasonable"?

          State and Federal Treasuries "Profit" More from Gasoline Sales than US Oil Industry

          Since 1977, governments collected more than $1.34 trillion, after adjusting for inflation, in gas tax revenue; more than twice the amount of domestic profits earned by major US oil companies during the same period.

          http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives...

          Reply

          20 Replies

          • 0%

            stephen-johnson2 months, 3 weeks ago

            "Didn't we already try a windfall profits tax on oil companies when Carter was president?

            How did that work out?"

            Like everything else Carter did - dismally.

            Look for another attempt for a windfall tax on oil companies if Obama is elected and the Democrats extend their majority. Along with a whole slew of other taxes that will cripple the economy and tank the markets.

            History repeats itself because we never learn from it.

            Reply

            19 Replies

            • 0%

              ETproductions2 months, 3 weeks ago

              I'm old enough to remember what that was all about. The oil crisis of the 70s was brought on by the Arab Oil embargo. It had NOTHING to do with US tax policies.

              Here's the history. http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/MidEast...

              Reply

              18 Replies

              • 0%

                Klarissa2 months, 3 weeks ago

                ET - also, Carter let the national oil reserves drop way down. Bush has them up to 97%. Our defense against an oil embargo.

                Let's set up drilling in Alaska, it will take 10 years, paid for with oil company profits. If we don't need it, fine. However, the threat of having it available would keep the prices in line.

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  ETproductions2 months, 3 weeks ago

                  Bush isn't facing the Arab Oil Embargo.

                  But I completely agree we should use what resources we have here while at the same time pushing HARD for alternatives. The current impasse seems to be that the right says the only way is to drill our way out of the problem while the left insists that we can only windmill our way out. Both are wrong.

                  We have 3% of the world's oil supply, but currently consume 25% of the world's oil supply. Therefore, 3/4 of every dollar in tax cuts on oil go offshore, mainly enriching people who would like to destroy us.

                  Reply
              • 0%

                nostalgia2 months, 3 weeks ago

                President Carter signed into law the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act, which established excise taxes as high as 70% on the difference between the market-determined price of oil and a (lower) price set by law. The tax was dropped in 1987, but according to the Congressional Research Service, almost $80 billion was drained from the industry's income statements while it was in effect.

                Money that could have been invested in new oil and gas production and to expand refining capacity was diverted to Washington. It should come as no surprise that oil production fell. In fact, 1.6 billion fewer barrels of crude oil were produced in the United States from 1980 to 1987 than would have been produced otherwise. American dependence on foreign oil rose apace.

                Reply

                14 Replies

                • 0%

                  nostalgia2 months, 3 weeks ago

                  However tempting it may be for populist politicians to meddle in energy markets, almost anything Congress does will only make a bad situation worse. Oil and gas production is a risky business, as Katrina and Rita demonstrated so vividly.

                  http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp...

                  ET

                  Congress can't even remember their own history

                  They meet Einstein's definition of insanity

                  Reply

                  12 Replies

                  • 0%

                    stephen-johnson2 months, 3 weeks ago

                    From your article:

                    "Despite the industry's above-average risk exposure, Big Oil is not extraordinarily profitable. According to Business Week and Oil Daily, average industry earnings were 7.7 cents per dollar of sales in the second quarter of 2005, also a time of relatively high gas prices. During that same quarter, by comparison, banks earned 19.6 cents; pharmaceuticals 18.6; software and related services 17; semiconductors 14.6; household and personal products 11.3; insurance 10.7; telecommunications 9.6; food, beverage and tobacco 9.4; and real estate 8.9. The corresponding figure for U.S. industry as a whole was 7.9 cents per dollar of sales."

                    Whenever the media demagogues the "excess profits" of the oil companies, they never put it into context by citing the revenues those profits are made on or the taxes that the oil comppanies pay.

                    Reply

                    11 Replies

                    • 0%

                      walden32 months, 3 weeks ago

                      I smell a switcheroo. Kind of like now that the national debt is out of hand and unmanageable, instead of talking about it in $'s let's play a switcheroo and compare it to % of GDP.

                      People keep your eye on the ball, "Exxon also had its most profitable quarter ever. It said Friday that net income rose 14 percent..." and "...it beat its own record for the highest profits ever recorded by any company..."

                      People, this is what matters. Don't be distracted.

                      Reply

                      10 Replies

                      • 0%

                        stephen-johnson2 months, 3 weeks ago

                        http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/companies/...

                        Exxon earned $11.66 billion in the fourth quarter of 2007 on revenues of $116.64 billion. That comes out to profit margin of 10% - an improvement over its historic profit margin of 7.7%, but still not earth shattering.

                        Reply

                        3 Replies

                        • 0%

                          walden32 months, 3 weeks ago

                          Largest profits EVER recorded by ANY business in the history of man.

                          Do you fail to see the stark and blinding contrast between that and regular Americans hurting at the pump?

                          It would be like you starving, stop, wait for it, think about starving or watching your wife and kids waste away to skin and bones like Auschwitz survivors. Think about it. Everyone is hungry and starving, getting thinner like on the show Survivor. You salivate at memories of TicTacs. Got it? Now you smell the smoke from your neighbor's BBQ steak and lobster. Are you gonna think that they deserve it while your darling, beloved wife starves to death?

                          People are worried about being able to afford to commute to work.

                          Just like Washington, DC and the corporate profiteers you have an enormous disconnect.

                          Reply

                          2 Replies

                          • 0%

                            stephen-johnson2 months, 3 weeks ago

                            Based on the largest REVENUES of any business known to man. In case you didn't know, lots of people buy gas

                            Like I said before, the oil profit picture is never put into perspective by the politicians and their lap dog media accomplices. They're too busy salivating over the possibility of getting more money for their harebrained schemes.

                            "Do you fail to see the stark and blinding contrast between that and regular Americans hurting at the pump?"

                            Truth be told, the same politicians who condemn oil companies for their excess profits don't have a problem collecting 3-4 times the profit total from taxes on oil. And those politicians who are in the hip pocket of the environmentalists would like to see us pay $8 a gallon for gas, like they do in "enlightened" Europe. Global warming, you know.

                            I see that the Italians are looking to restart their nuclear power program. But don't try it here.

                            Reply

                            1 Reply

                            • 0%

                              walden32 months, 3 weeks ago

                              We're getting nowhere, but I appreciate your polite and well-reasoned arguments.

                              Reply
                      • 0%

                        amazed2 months, 3 weeks ago

                        Walden -- using the ROI (return on investment) is NOT the deceptive form of reporting oil's profit, using absolute dollars is.

                        If I invest $100 and in return, I receive $10,000, that is a return on investment of 10000% -- truly obscene, but 10K is not such a great deal of money, so the more common reaction would be "wow, aren't you lucky".

                        But if I invest $100,000,000,000,000 and I get a return of 1,000,000,000,000, that is a huge amount of money -- wow, I wish I had that -- must have done something really shady or really gouged everyone to end up with so much money, but THAT is a return on investment of 1%, truly pathetic. Now, while the oil companies profit margins are not THAT low, they are lower than most other industries -- therefore, as much as I also hate paying $65 bucks to fill my Camry, I can't really accuse them of gouging.

                        Reply

                        5 Replies

                        • 0%

                          amazed2 months, 3 weeks ago

                          In fact, they may very well become hard-pressed to get investors, because, if one can invest their money and get 15% or they can invest and get only 7% -- where are they going to go.

                          Now, I am not crying for the oil companies, and any corporate welfare should be eliminated, but the windfall profits tax is a loser that has already been shown to be a loser.

                          Reply
                        • 0%

                          walden32 months, 3 weeks ago

                          It's the 21st century equivalent of the company store. You know, 'St. Peter don't you take me. You know I can't go. I owe my soul to ExxonMobil.'

                          They're larger than all the countries in the world except for the largest 24.

                          In a time of war and recession, when people are suffering, going hungry and losing their homes and jobs. I think that socially responsible corporations would give a bit back. They've gotten rich on the backs of the American people for generations. They can give back. They should give back.

                          I don't know my history well enough, but I bet Big Oil wasn't allowed to earn "historic" profits during WWII.

                          Reply

                          3 Replies

                          • 0%

                            stephen-johnson2 months, 3 weeks ago

                            "They've gotten rich on the backs of the American people for generations. They can give back. They should give back."

                            If you're a shareholder of the oil companies and millions of Americans are, either directly or indirectly - the oil companies ARE giving back.

                            Too bad the same can't be said about politicians and their taxes. Proposals to cancel the fedreal gasoline tax went over like a lead balloon

                            Reply

                            2 Replies

                            • 0%

                              stephen-johnson2 months, 3 weeks ago

                              http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/10...

                              With BP, Exxon-Mobil, and Shell reporting record profits, the Tax Foundation reminds us in its latest Fiscal Fact that the biggest beneficiaries of gasoline sales are federal and state governments, not the oil industry:

                              High gas prices and strong oil company earnings have generated a rash of new tax proposals in recent months. Some lawmakers have called for new "windfall profits" taxes—similar to the one signed into federal law in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter—that would tax the profits of major oil companies at a rate of 50%. Meanwhile, many commentators have voiced support for the idea of increasing gas taxes to keep the price of gasoline at post-Katrina highs, thereby reducing gas consumption

                              Reply

                              1 Reply

                              • 0%

                                stephen-johnson2 months, 3 weeks ago

                                However, often ignored in this debate is the fact that oil industry profits are highly cyclical, making them just as prone to "busts" as to "booms." Additionally, tax collections on the production and import of gasoline by state and federal governments are already near historic highs. In fact, in recent decades governments have collected far more revenue from gasoline taxes than the largest U.S. oil companies have collectively earned in domestic profits....

                                Quote: The government collects far more in taxes on every gallon of gasoline than the oil companies collect in profits. If oil company profits are "obscene," as some politicians claim, are the government's taxes PG-13?

                                ~Thomas Sowell

                                Reply
                • 0%

                  saintetienne2 months, 3 weeks ago

                  "President Carter signed into law the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act, which established excise taxes as high as 70% on the difference between the market-determined price of oil and a (lower) price set by law. The tax was dropped in 1987, but according to the Congressional Research Service, almost $80 billion was drained from the industry's income statements while it was in effect."

                  Jimmy Carter, like FDR in the 1930's, sold the United States down the river.

                  Reply
              • 0%

                stephen-johnson2 months, 3 weeks ago

                "I'm old enough to remember what that was all about. The oil crisis of the 70s was brought on by the Arab Oil embargo. It had NOTHING to do with US tax policies."

                http://money.propeller.com/story/2008/06/10/rep...

                I said that Carter signed a windfall profit tax bill on oil companies, which he did in 1980. Your comment is irrelevant. Pay closer attention next time.

                Reply
        • 0%

          sailr2 months, 3 weeks ago

          oops! meant to give you a GOOD, not a BAD! MY BAD!

          Reply
        • 0%

          libsRfunny2 months, 3 weeks ago

          "The legislation only imposed a windfall tax on excess profits NOT invested toward energy independence. This was good legislation. Combine it with domestic production increases and it would be excellent legislation."

          Moronic analysis, per usual. You tax alleged "windfalls," and there is less money for domestic production. BP's ceo recently said one of the reasons there has been less domestic production and investment is gov't taxation. But, morons love taxes.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            thatsjustme2 months, 3 weeks ago

            I agree. The more you tax the poor and middle class on fuel, the less they will be able to spend on other things. The economy slows to a crawl and next thing you know, we're all screwed. NO MORE TAXES!!!! PENALIZE THEM

            Reply
        • 0%

          injest2 months, 3 weeks ago

          "Shallow analysis as usual. The legislation only imposed a windfall tax on excess profits NOT invested toward energy independence."

          Shallow? excess profits? What are excess profits? AS a percentage of Net?

          Why is that left out?

          Ultimately, who pays ALL taxes?

          "NOT invested toward energy independence"

          Why would Oil companies have to invest in energy independence?

          Their in the oil game, they produce and deliver petroleum products.

          If energy independence is the goal wouldn't that best be done by folks who are not in the oil game?

          Like the government, oops sorry oil is a cash cow for government.

          What is stopping folks who want to develop alternative energy, energy independence from starting a co and doing it?

          Reply
      • 0%

        rightfromwrong2 months, 3 weeks ago

        the oil companies still receive subsidies...tax the b'stards.

        Everyone thinks it is the oil cartel but they have not raised their prices in more than 1.5yr

        Reply
      • 0%

        MRCOFFEECAKE2 months, 3 weeks ago

        So what is your brilliant explanation for why the economy is in the shiiiter now?

        Or do you, as did the entire Bush administration and most Republicans deny that we were in a recession right through the

        literal defense in mid-April.

        Yeah, they denied it because "technically" the economy had not had 2 consecutive quarters with a drop in GNP..

        So how do you "technically" pay for $5 gas if you're a trucker, avoid real foreclosures and buy real food??

        The problem is that you blame the democrats fro trying ANYTHING and laud the Republicans for doing NOTHING..

        They may BOTH be wrong, but would you rather sink on a Titanic with a captain who keeps insisting that it's just the water getting higher, not the ship getting lower, or would you rather try something, even if it ma not work?

        I already know your answer. I know your captain@!

        He's laughing at you in his gold plated dinghy!

        Reply
    • 0%

      Lurch2 months, 3 weeks ago

      The cons are going to beyatch no matter what. Remember during Clinton, they whined about BC when Clinton attacked the terrorists, then they whined about BC again when the Republicans cut the balls out of his anti-terror bill.

      Reality does not faze these people for a moment, it is purely an issue of party over country for them.

      Reply

      3 Replies

      • 0%

        antibrainwasher2 months, 3 weeks ago

        Republican first, ruling class first, american second. Liberals are the enemy. Or more generally, Americans are the enemy.

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          thatsjustme2 months, 3 weeks ago

          Communistic BS!!! Are you the enemy? Or maybe your not an American...Communist!

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            doggammit2 months, 3 weeks ago

            "Communistic BS!!! Are you the enemy? Or maybe your not an American...Communist!"

            Maybe AB is just not into corporate welfare or a pork barrel with no trickle down drippings for HONEST HARD WORKING AMERICANS.

            AB's is not an improper thumbnail assessment considering the huge disparity that has developed between "luxury classes' and the average working person. Also, the growing perception of big oil having become the most recent boondoggle of choice (the Saudis claim there is no reason for high prices other than SPECULATION) shows both cause and effect of a widening disconnect between the top 20% of America's executive earners vs. the remaining 80%. Minimally, we have a recipe for the type of protests now overtaking Europe. If there is not significant change in the way big oil and big industry in general have been coddled by big government, things could get much worse. Ah! those greedy, stupid aristocrats! They never know when to quite while they have a head, do they?

            Reply
    • 0%

      injest2 months, 3 weeks ago

      Headline:

      Senate GOP blocks windfall taxes on Big Oil

      Truth:

      Senate GOP blocks windfall taxes on All Americans

      "The Democratic energy package would have imposed a 25 percent tax on any "unreasonable" profits"

      Define "unreasonable" profits. Is it 1% of gross sales?

      1% above net? 5% above net

      "of the five largest U.S. oil companies, which together made $36 billion during the first three months of the year."

      $36 billion without context, net or gross, this is a meaningless number.

      "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."

      And who does Obama think is going to PAY additional taxes on the oil companies?

      Ultimately it's you and me.

      Reply
  • 0%

    protoham2 months, 3 weeks ago

    It was a very bad idea. Thanks Repubs!!

    Reply

    6 Replies

    • 0%

      Lurch2 months, 3 weeks ago

      Yeah, cartels should be allowed to gouge us consumers as much as they like. We`re just mangy dogs waiting eagerly for our next beating.

      Reply

      5 Replies

      • 0%

        amazed2 months, 3 weeks ago

        now, perhaps if the dems had figured out a way to transfer those windfall profit taxes back to those of us who paid them, it might be helpful. Otherwise, the true effect of a "windfall profit" tax, is to further raise the price fuel.

        Corporation NEVER willingly pay the taxes themselves. If at all possible, they get passed along as a cost of doing business. The oil companies have a product with a reasonably inelastic demand, so they can raise their prices with no big repercussions. We still need their oil products nearly regardless of the price.

        Reply

        4 Replies

        • 0%

          lestparker2 months, 3 weeks ago

          they dont pay taxes at all. All taxes ultimately are paid by the consumer.. Taxes are simply another cost of doing business. BTW, who do the people who support a windfall tax think those profits belong to anyway? In fact they belong to the owners of the corporation.. in short, anyone who has a mutual fund, 401k, retirement plan, pension plan. Teachers, union workers, doctors, lawyers and indian chiefs. Anyone who thought this tax was a good idea is fooling themselves. Government is NOT the answer. never has been and never will be. it is the problem people!

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            stephen-johnson2 months, 3 weeks ago

            "BTW, who do the people who support a windfall tax think those profits belong to anyway? In fact they belong to the owners of the corporation.. in short, anyone who has a mutual fund, 401k, retirement plan, pension plan. Teachers, union workers, doctors, lawyers and indian chiefs. Anyone who thought this tax was a good idea is fooling themselves"

            Less than 3% of Exxon stock is held by insiders. The overwhelming majority of shares are owned by the public either directly or, more commonly, indirectly via a mutual fund. Too bad the media doesn't point oil stock oswnership in retirement/savings plans out to the public.

            Reply
        • 0%

          amazed2 months, 3 weeks ago

          small corporations OFTEN pay taxes.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            amazed2 months, 3 weeks ago

            small corporations, unfortunately, OFTEN pay taxes..

            Reply
  • 0%

    DropkickaLib2 months, 3 weeks ago

    The problem is that the Dems are ignoring the fact that the Chinese and Indians are purchasing massive amounts of oil on the world market. Anything we conserve, additional Chinese purchases will more than offset, thereby pushing prices up. Clearly, the economic forces behind oil prices are not understood by the framers of this legislation. Perhaps placing some limits on institutional investment in oil futures would help curb speculation but even the effect of hedge fund investment has not been quantified. The problem with legislators is that they all too often draft bills to make it look like they are doing something before they understand the issues involved and the consequences of that legislation.

    Reply
• 0%

  CommonDavid2 months, 3 weeks ago

  Good thing! Wouldn't want all those billionaire oil tycoons not being able to afford their new $50 million dollar yacht!!! /sarcasm

  Reply
• 0%

  TonyByron2 months, 3 weeks ago

  Jimmy Carter's windfall profit tax worked out well, didn't it?

  Reply

  3 Replies

  • 0%

    Lurch2 months, 3 weeks ago

    Roosevelt`s windfall profit tax paid for WWII.

    How did that go again? Did we win that one??

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      DropkickaLib2 months, 3 weeks ago

      Actually, the government sold massive quantities of bonds.

      Reply
    • 0%

      saintetienne2 months, 3 weeks ago

      Don't even get me started on the Stalin-like rule and the stupefying blunders of Franklin D. Roosevelt, quite possibly the worst president ever to take office.

      Reply
• 0%

  flyonthewallzz2 months, 3 weeks ago

  Here are some numbers from the White house. (receipts.xls)

  Windfall profit tax: 1980 thru 1986 = $78.2 billion.

  Transportation fuels tax: 1991 thru 2004 = $ 48.6 billion.

  Transportation fuels tax: 2005 thru 2008 = $ -9.6 billion (that means we paid it)

  Here are some percentages of total reciepts:

  Corporation Income Taxes: 2000 = 10.23%, 2003= 7.39%

  Social Insurance Taxes and Contributions: 2000 = 32.23%, 2003 = 40.00%

  Personally I do not feel that I have been passed the savings of industry.

  Do you?

  Reply

  5 Replies

  • 0%

    flyonthewallzz2 months, 3 weeks ago

    Here is another one that has me confused:

    Telephone excise tax:

    From 2007 thru 2008 we paid out $13.9 billion.

    From 1984 thru 2006 we collected $93.1 billion.

    I know my service has gotten cheaper because I canceled my land line.

    Reply
  • 0%

    walden32 months, 3 weeks ago

    I'm not sure if I understand your question. The tax burden has been shifted from corps and higher income TPs to the middle class.

    Reply

    3 Replies

    • 0%

      flyonthewallzz2 months, 3 weeks ago

      It seems to me that you understood it perfectly.

      40 percent of the government reciepts come from the first $100 grand of wage earners.

      Yet some how, in many instances they are not counted as taxes.

      Inequity Aversion: is a cool thing to google, Monkeys and economists are pouring over the data.

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        walden32 months, 3 weeks ago

        Ask yourself about the cap on FICA contributions. Why is the ceiling, for 08, $102,000? I don't think it's fair to tax someone that earns $102,000 the same as someone that earns $102,000,000.

        It doesn't seem cool to me that one guys gets taxed @ 6.2% and the higher wage earner gets taxed @ .0062%.

        If I had my way I would remove the cap.

        I also would tax unearned income at the same rate as earned income. In my mind it's not fair to tax passive income at a lower rate than that earned by people that go to work everyday.

        Finally, I would means test social security. Why should everyone get it. I know everyone pays into it, but I pay to support my school system and I don't have kids. My taxes go to the war and I don't support the war. It's just the way things are. Let's reduce government costs where we can. We have to. Our future literally depends on it.

        Employing a couple of these ideas would ensure that social security is solvent into the far future.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          flyonthewallzz2 months, 3 weeks ago

          Plain fact:

          Folks earning between $65 and $100 grand pay out the greatest percentage of their earnings than anyone else.

          Lots of tax calculater sites that can prove it easily.

          6.2% for SS can be doubled and then stepped on again to get to the true contribution of folks that work by the hour.

          in 2003 $713 billion bucks was collected off working folks first $100 grand, $793 billion bucks was personal income tax.

          I don't get it.

          Did you check out the monkey thing?

          Reply
• 0%

  cosmogenium2 months, 3 weeks ago

  This is simply the Republican game plan. You see, they took the "over" bet on this year's Senate results, and they are just making sure the Dems get at least 60 seats total in the Senate. The Repubs will rake in the cash and laugh all the way to the banks...which will be closed...with the squad cars waiting in line to take them all away....

  Reply
• 0%

  Lurch2 months, 3 weeks ago

  It`s the way of the Republican.

  If they are clever (read connected and immoral) enough to steal those huge sums from us taxpayers and consumers, well then they have certainly earned the right to gouge us during a war while we lose homes, jobs, savings, companies, etc.

  Unless you make over a several million a year, you would have to be truly self loathing to still vote Republican.

  Reply

  13 Replies

  • 0%

    lestparker2 months, 3 weeks ago

    who do you think pays all of the taxes? It is the consumer you fool, not the corporations. They just pass it on and the people at the pump will pay it.

    Reply

    12 Replies

    • 0%

      walden32 months, 3 weeks ago

      You get negged for being a name-caller.

      Reply

      11 Replies

      • 0%

        newbie04202 months, 3 weeks ago

        Did you neg lurch for calling Republicans (connected and immoral)?

        Reply

        10 Replies

        • 0%

          walden32 months, 3 weeks ago

          No, because he didn't call anyone a "fool." Do you see a difference?

          Reply

          9 Replies

          • 0%

            newbie04202 months, 3 weeks ago

            Not at all.

            If anything labelling all Republicans as "connected and immoral" would be worse than one person calling another a fool.

            Not that either is right, which is why I don't understand why you'd neg one for "name calling" and not the other.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              walden32 months, 3 weeks ago

              He didn't do that. He said, "if they are clever enough (read that connected and immoral)."

              I see a difference. It's like me saying lawyers suck versus saying newbie0420 is an idiot. We see things differently.

              Reply
          • 0%

            amazed2 months, 3 weeks ago

            sure, fool is a rude judgement and epithet, immoral is a slur on a person's character-- clearly slandering one's character is far less offensive than questioning their reasoning process....

            ((He didn't do that. He said, "if they are clever enough (read that connected and immoral)."

            And, actually your lawyer analogy is flawed. It is the difference between saying "newbie is an idiot" and "good lawyers are crooked". "suck" is not the equivalent of "immoral". It's much closer to "fool" -- in that both are colloquial insults and "immoral" is really more absolute.

            I see a difference. It's like me saying lawyers suck versus saying newbie0420 is an idiot. We see things differently.))

            Oh, all right then, he gave a choice between republicans being stupid OR immoral. Clearly SO much less offensive (not)

            Reply

            6 Replies

            • 0%

              newbie04202 months, 3 weeks ago

              It's good that somebody else gets it amazed.

              I see it more like this, it's the differnce between:

              Lawyers are immoral and newbie is immoral.

              Lawyers are foolish and newbie is a fool.

              One slanders an entire group all at once one slanders just one person.

              Obviously they're both wrong but I'd like to think slandering an entire group is just slightly worse...

              Reply
            • 0%

              walden32 months, 3 weeks ago

              Pretty far from the thread but,

              so to you saying lawyers are stupid is the same as saying to Sam Jones, 'Sam you are stupid?'

              You don't see the difference between a general insult levied at everyone and one directed at an individual?

              Reply

              4 Replies

              • 0%

                lestparker2 months, 3 weeks ago

                way to much comment on my poor manners. I apologize for name calling. Generally I dont engage in it, and am duly chastened for my lack of judgement. Please accept my apology lurch.

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  walden32 months, 3 weeks ago

                  Hey I do it too sometimes. When I do please call me on it.

                  Reply