|
neue regel
|
 |
« Reply #75 on: May 07, 2008, 04:55:31 AM » |
|
And how much money has he given to oil companies in the form of subsidies and tax breaks?
In 2005 alone he gave oil companies $4.3 billion in tax incetives LINK. What was the money an incentive to do? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
freethinker
|
|
« Reply #76 on: May 07, 2008, 06:20:29 AM » |
|
And how much money has he given to oil companies in the form of subsidies and tax breaks?
In 2005 alone he gave oil companies $4.3 billion in tax incetives LINK. What was the money an incentive to do? Support the GOP. This link Brax provided: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/03/sleight_of_hand.html is an eye opening account of how Bush will lie about everything and anything. It is his standard operating procedure to say and do opposite things. He placates the peoples concearns with lies and lip service while screwing them at the same time. If anyone only looked at what he says they might think this guy is fairly responsive to the needs of the people ...however when what he does is examined a totaly different picture emerges as a leader who panders only to big bussiness' and cronies. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
NO Third Term For Bush
|
|
|
|
neue regel
|
|
« Reply #77 on: May 07, 2008, 06:30:05 AM » |
|
He placates the peoples concearns with lies and lip service while screwing them at the same time. Is it your opinion that Bush has a monopoly on this? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +97/-130
Posts: 1,592
NObama '08
|
|
« Reply #78 on: May 07, 2008, 06:39:59 AM » |
|
And how much money has he given to oil companies in the form of subsidies and tax breaks?
In 2005 alone he gave oil companies $4.3 billion in tax incetives LINK. What was the money an incentive to do? Good question, let's see what the "oil companies are evil" crowd says. While they answer that, maybe they can tell us how taxing the oil companies MORE is going to help anyone at the pump. The oil companies have done pretty well trying to give us energy while the Federal government (who doesn't explore, drill, transport or refine and has NO energy policy) insists on getting it's "cut".....which comes out of YOUR pocket. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
“Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”
No 2nd Pelosi/Reid/Obama Congress
|
|
|
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +197/-195
Posts: 3,662
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
|
« Reply #79 on: May 07, 2008, 07:23:20 AM » |
|
What was the money an incentive to do? Good question, let's see what the "oil companies are evil" crowd says.
While they answer that, maybe they can tell us how taxing the oil companies MORE is going to help anyone at the pump.
The oil companies have done pretty well trying to give us energy while the Federal government (who doesn't explore, drill, transport or refine and has NO energy policy) insists on getting it's "cut".....which comes out of YOUR pocket. Did either of you actually, like, read the LINK I gave? - Only seven of the 105 recommendation in the National Energy Policy Report concern renewable energy. National Energy Policy report, May 17, 2001.
- “Renewable energy R&D funding was cut in biomass, geothermal and solar energy programs” in President Bush’s proposed FY 2003 budget. Greenwire, February 7, 2002.
- Bush’s Fiscal Year 2006 budget proposes “$354 million for the Department of Energy’s (DOE) renewable energy programs—a 5.6 percent reduction from the proposed 2005 budget…The overall decrease in DOE renewable energy funding…reflects a reduction in spending on other renewable technologies such as solar, geothermal, and bioenergy.” Union of Concerned Scientists, February 22, 2005.
- The Energy Policy Act includes $25 billion for oil and gas, coal, and nuclear plants, and only $6.4 billion for renewable energy. Friends of the Earth, July 27, 2005.
- “The overall amount of the [Fiscal Year 2007 budget] request for energy efficiency, renewables, and energy conservation ($1.176 billion) is almost exactly the same amount appropriated in Fiscal Year 2001 for the same purposes.” This figure is nearly a 9 percent reduction from 2001. Democratic Policy Committee, February 8, 2006.
- “Research and development funding for geothermal and hydropower has been eliminated [in Bush’s FY2007 budget]. The FY07 budget request for research and development for wind…is a $930,000 (2 percent) cut from last year’s request. … The 2007 budget also proposes cutting almost two-thirds of the $23 million designated for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs in the 2002 Farm Bill.” Union of Concerned Scientists, February 13, 2006.
- President Bush’s Fiscal Year 2008 budget proposes to cut research funds for wind, eliminate them for geothermal energy, and leave funding for solar stagnant. U.S. Department of Energy, February 5, 2007.
- President Bush threatens to veto the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act (H.R. 2776), which includes tax incentives for producers and homeowners to employ renewable energy technologies, and the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act (H.R. 3221), which includes a 15 percent renewable electricity standard. Statement of Administration Policy, August 3, 2007.
- President Bush threatens to veto the Energy Independence and Security Act because it includes a renewable electricity standard and renewable energy tax credits funded by the elimination of several tax breaks for big oil companies. Statement of Administration Policy, December 7, 2007. You're welcome to check out their cources too. It's all pretty well cited. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
freethinker
|
|
« Reply #80 on: May 07, 2008, 08:24:52 AM » |
|
And how much money has he given to oil companies in the form of subsidies and tax breaks?
In 2005 alone he gave oil companies $4.3 billion in tax incetives LINK. What was the money an incentive to do? Good question, let's see what the "oil companies are evil" crowd says. While they answer that, maybe they can tell us how taxing the oil companies MORE is going to help anyone at the pump. The oil companies have done pretty well trying to give us energy while the Federal government (who doesn't explore, drill, transport or refine and has NO energy policy) insists on getting it's "cut".....which comes out of YOUR pocket. No Patton the federal government doesn't explore drill transport or refine the oil. All they do is build and maintain a highway system so you can do something other than sit in your garage and idle after you buy the fuel. That is what the gas tax is. In fact its not a true tax , it is a user fee you pay for useing the highways. It should be noted that gasoline sold for purposes other than transportation, I.E. agriculture, does not get charged this fee at all. It was Eisenhower who decided the fed had to get a "cut" so there could be an interstate highway system. It has been the largest public works project in history. From OUR pocket to OUR roads. Its something we should be proud of , not something to bellyache about. If we cut subsides for the oil companies who certinly don't need them, we could redirect that money to supporting the maintenance and repair of bridges across America ...something that is desperately needed as we witnessed in Minneapolis. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 07, 2008, 09:34:48 AM by freethinker »
|
Logged
|
NO Third Term For Bush
|
|
|
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +97/-130
Posts: 1,592
NObama '08
|
|
« Reply #81 on: May 08, 2008, 05:49:55 AM » |
|
What was Eisenhowers purpose for creating the "interstate highway system?"
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
“Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”
No 2nd Pelosi/Reid/Obama Congress
|
|
|
|
freethinker
|
|
« Reply #82 on: May 08, 2008, 08:03:28 AM » |
|
The purpose was at least three fold;
To give the growing numbers of American Motorists a safe, free and expedient way to travel across the country. This purpose was lobbied for by the growing auto industry.
To stimulate interstate commerce to smaller towns that were not serviced by railroads. Before the interstate highway system if you didn't live in a big city or on a rail line it was very difficult and expensive to get goods or even mail delivered.
To give the military a means of rapid deployment of troops or supplies to any part of the country in the event of national emergencies.
Eisenhower was impressed by the autobahn in Germany and saw the social, economic and strategic advantages to a similar system in the US.
Patton ,you are a military man so I expect that the reason you ask, is to tell me it was for military purposes only. Ike was a military man as well, but he was also a peace time President with a vision for the nation and he championed the highway system for at least all of the above reasons. The interstate highway system was and is largely responsible for the rapid growth and development of the US as an economic, military and social leader in the world since the mid fifties.
You can bellyache about paying the federal user fee or gas tax as many like to call it but our highway system is one of the best deals the government has provided. The way it was and is paid for is certinly fair...if you don't drive, you don't buy gas and you don't pay the tax.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 08, 2008, 08:24:04 AM by freethinker »
|
Logged
|
NO Third Term For Bush
|
|
|
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +97/-130
Posts: 1,592
NObama '08
|
|
« Reply #83 on: May 08, 2008, 10:44:21 AM » |
|
I'm sorry...I was knee-jerking...I understand all forms of taxes....my tax bill is more than what most here make in a year. There are some runnning for President who feel the oil companies need to pay more taxes...I was curious as to how that will help prices at the pump.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
“Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”
No 2nd Pelosi/Reid/Obama Congress
|
|
|
|
freethinker
|
|
« Reply #84 on: May 08, 2008, 11:03:41 AM » |
|
No need to apologize Patton. I don't think more taxes to the oil companies is whats at question anyway. If your reference to "some running for president" is about Hillary wanting to get the oil companies to pay the gas tax for the summer ...that idea never had any legs and was pure pandering and posturing to win votes. That plan wouldn't help at pump because the oil companies would just raise the price per gallon and we would pay it just the same. The real question is, does the most successful and profitable industry in the world still need subsidies to stay in business in the US?
I, for one, believe that that money could, and should be used to much greater advantage for transportation infrastructure rather than to add a few billion to Exon/Mobil's profit margin.
How do you feel about that idea?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
NO Third Term For Bush
|
|
|
|
Pond Scum
|
|
« Reply #85 on: May 09, 2008, 12:20:13 AM » |
|
I'm sorry...I was knee-jerking...I understand all forms of taxes....my tax bill is more than what most here make in a year. There are some runnning for President who feel the oil companies need to pay more taxes...I was curious as to how that will help prices at the pump.
Wow, this post reminds me of one of my favorite quotes. Now hod did that go again? Oh yeah.......... "If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty—four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow—sufferers. Our landholders, too, like theirs, retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must wander, like theirs, in foreign countries, and be contented with penury, obscurity, exile, and the glory of the nation. This example reads to us the salutary lesson, that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance. And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression." Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Kercheval, 1816, "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson" 15:39 http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=459THE ENTIRE LETTER IS A REAL GEM. I love letters from well respected people. It is common sense that people in the spotlight can be more honest in their letters than in speeches and public writings. After all, most letters do not become known until after the authors death. I have spent many dozens of hours sifting through letters and verifying quotes form letters. They are my FAVORITE source for information on the founding fathers and I am looking forward to sinking my teeth into some future letters from people still living, people like Brzezinski. If I can only live long enough. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 09, 2008, 12:22:52 AM by Pond Scum »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +97/-130
Posts: 1,592
NObama '08
|
|
« Reply #86 on: May 09, 2008, 08:37:21 AM » |
|
I, for one, believe that that money could, and should be used to much greater advantage for transportation infrastructure rather than to add a few billion to Exon/Mobil's profit margin.
How do you feel about that idea? They are already contributing to transportation infrastructure just like everyone else who pays Federal income/corporate tax....making them pay more than anyone else is punitive and decreases the likliehood of using any profit or discresionary income to reinvest in exploration and refinement technologies...something that actually does something to provide energy to us as opposed to the government that makes or does nothing to provide energy. Maybe you would be intrested in this: -"In a market economy, production is driven by a profit motive," Strom said. "If I'm an entrepreneur and I'm starting a business and there's no prospect of me making a profit, there is little, if any, reason for me to undertake that activity." -For its part, the oil industry concedes that the oil companies are making lots of money, but Rayola Dougher, senior economic advisor at API, the industry's trade and lobbying group, said those companies are also spending billions and billions of dollars. -"That's just one part of the story. They are earning a fortune. That's tens of billions of dollars. But they're spending hundreds of billions getting the product to market" -the oil industry earns a lot less than some other major industries. API says its members earn about 8.3 cents per dollar invested, compared to 18.4 cents for pharmaceutical manufacturers and 19.1 cents for beverage and tobacco producers. -"A lot of consumers think that [a $2 per gallon run-up in gas prices] is all in profits, it's all going to some fat cats back in some room somewhere," Dougher said. "It's 8 cents. It's fair. The other 92 cents is going back into investments, back into operations, to bring more product back to the market." -While crude oil has gone up from about $66 a barrel to almost $119 — an 80 percent increase during the last year — gas has gone from $2.71 a gallon to $3.60, an increase of only 33 percent. -As for who reaps the biggest reward from these massive quarterly oil profits, many people may imagine a group of oil privileged executives or tycoons. And they do own millions of dollars in stock, but nothing compared to what the rest of the public owns. -mutual fund giant Vanguard which has more than $18 billion in ExxonMobil stock. Most of that is owned by investors in the company's S&P 500 index fund and its total stock market index fund. And it's not just Vanguard. Almost every major mutual fund company owns oil stocks. Two of Fidelity's mutual funds, for example, rank in the top 10 holders of ExxonMobil stock. - The oil companies are "broadly owned by tens of millions of middle-class Americans, anyone with a pension plan or 401(k) or IRA account, a mutual fund," Dougher said. "They're really the owners. So, when their stock portfolios go up, that's really who benefits."From ABC News |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 09, 2008, 08:41:37 AM by Patton »
|
Logged
|
“Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”
No 2nd Pelosi/Reid/Obama Congress
|
|
|
|
freethinker
|
|
« Reply #87 on: May 09, 2008, 09:06:30 AM » |
|
Two questions Patton: How many new wells have US oil companies drilled in the last 6 years? (This what the subsidies were intended for) . How much oil stock do you own? ( its ok to be defending your pocketbook I just would like to know where you are comeing from) Here is what the big oil companies have said about subsudies and tax breaks...basicly THEY say they don't need them! WASHINGTON, DC - April 1 - Today, executives of the five largest oil companies operating in America (ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips) are testifying before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. With crude oil consistently exceeding $100 a barrel and a national average of $3.30 a gallon for gasoline fueling record profits for the oil industry, these executives should explain why they should continue to receive billions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks from the American people when the money could be better spent on renewable energy and energy efficiency investments needed to combat climate change. As I have noted previously ( www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2618), the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 5351 in February, which repeals $18 billion of oil company tax breaks over the next decade, dedicating much of the proceeds to investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. Public Citizen raises four points that Congress should ask the oil executives today: Oil executives have already said they don’t need the tax breaks. In testimony before a joint hearing of the Senate Committees on Commerce, Science and Transportation and Energy and Natural Resources on Nov. 9, 2005, Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden asked executives from these same five oil companies: “President [Bush] said, and I quote: ‘With $55 oil, we do not need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives.’ Now, today the price of oil is above $55 per barrel [at the time, $59.65 to be exact]. Is the President wrong when he says we do not need incentives for oil and gas exploration? If I could just have a yes or no answer, going right down the row beginning with you, Mr. [Lee] Raymond [then-CEO of ExxonMobil].” Mr. RAYMOND. No, I do not think our company has asked for any incentives for exploration. Sen. WYDEN. Sir? David J. O’REILLY, Chairman & CEO, ChevronTexaco. Agreed. James J. MULVA, Chairman & CEO, ConocoPhillips. In my oral comments I said we do not need. What we do need, though, is access— Senator WYDEN. Just a yes or no. Mr. MULVA. Yes. Senator WYDEN. Sir? The President is correct? Ross J. PILLARI. President & CEO, BP America. He is correct. Senator WYDEN. Sir? John HOFMEISTER, President, Shell Oil Co. Yes, he is. Oil companies are spending more on stock buybacks than capital investment. Oil exceeding $100 a barrel should provide the industry with all the incentive necessary to re-invest in energy infrastructure. But since 2005, the largest five oil companies have had cumulative profits of $345 billion and spent $252 billion buying back stock and paying dividends to shareholders. In addition, they are sitting on $53 billion in cash. Indeed, in 2007, ExxonMobil spent $3.34 billion on capital expenditures in the United States, while spending 850 percent more — $31.8 billion — buying back stock. If the oil industry is unwilling to use $100 a barrel oil to make necessary investments here at home, then Congress is justified in revoking recently awarded tax breaks worth billions of dollars. Tax breaks slated for repeal were enacted during a period of record profits. The primary Big Oil giveaway that H.R. 5351 targets for repeal was enacted into law in 2004. By freezing the domestic production deduction only for major integrated oil companies, Big Oil companies will rightly be denied $13.6 billion in tax breaks over the next decade. In addition, the legislation would close a loophole that allows some oil companies with foreign operations to pay less in U.S. taxes. Closing this loophole will require oil companies to pay $4 billion more to the U.S. Treasury over the next decade. Energy futures markets where prices are set must be re-regulated. Two regulatory lapses are enabling anti-competitive practices in energy trading markets where prices of energy are set. First, oil companies, investment banks and hedge funds are exploiting recently deregulated energy trading markets to manipulate energy prices. Second, energy traders are speculating on information gleaned from their own company’s energy infrastructure affiliates, a type of legal “insider trading.” Indeed, in October 2007, BP agreed to pay more than $300 million to settle allegations that the company manipulated American propane futures markets. Closing the “Enron Loophole” to restore transparency and reduce speculative abuses will help bring down prices. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 09, 2008, 09:08:57 AM by freethinker »
|
Logged
|
NO Third Term For Bush
|
|
|
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +97/-130
Posts: 1,592
NObama '08
|
|
« Reply #88 on: May 09, 2008, 12:10:20 PM » |
|
How many new wells have US oil companies drilled in the last 6 years? (This what the subsidies were intended for) I will suppose since you are smart and don't ask a question you don't already have an answer for you most likely have the number. I will add that new wells are drilled on new discoveries...no need to invest new wells on old fields....old fields are generally well drilled. Of the new discoveries....are US companies ALLOWED to drill? How much oil stock do you own? ( its ok to be defending your pocketbook I just would like to know where you are comeing from) I have a great deal in index type funds (like most Americans who have 401K's) that have a percentage dedicated to energy which is primarily oil. I also own a great deal of mineral rights in Blaine County, Oklahoma....but the royalty income ratio of oil to natural gas is about 10:90. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
“Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”
No 2nd Pelosi/Reid/Obama Congress
|
|
|
|
Ron Mars
|
|
« Reply #89 on: May 14, 2008, 03:33:44 PM » |
|
It is about having a supply of oil for the NEXT 30 FLIPPING YEARS.
And we could do that without starting a war in the ME. We don't get our oil from there. We have "protected oil" right here in the US. The argument that we invaded Iraq for oil makes no sense. Besides, we aren't doing a single thing to "protect" Iraq's oil for American export now or in the next 30 years. Those decisions are being made by Iraqis. The US will import very little if any oil from Iraq within that timeframe. Hopefully, Iraq's oil will be turned into profits for the Iraqi Government and it's people. ... there is NO FLIPPING WAY PRODUCTION CAN INCREASE ENOUGH TO KEEP UP.
We are not running out of oil in the world, but we are running out of CHEAP OIL.
I don't agree with that specifically, but obviously the cost of producing a barrel of oil and the quality of that oil differs greatly all over the world. The OPEC nations could double production without much trouble and in very little time, just a few years. We have relatively cheap sources of oil in the US we don't use and it would take 3-5 years to develop with even a maximum effort. We are not running out of oil in the near future but some time ago we ran out of the will to do something about the eventual increasing US and world demand for oil and find alternative sources of energy. We are importing oil from the same sources as we did four years ago so obviously those sources were "cheap", at least they were four years ago when oil was $50 a barrel. The price of oil is set on the world commodities market. Right now it's incredibly overpriced because OPEC has decided not to produce more and I believe they even decided to slightly cut production. It's in their best interest to keep the price high for obvious reasons. Short of asking them to increase their production, what can Bush do about OPEC? Beg? Plead? We made the same decision as OPEC did. We are not aggressively developing our own sources of oil even today. IMO the energy needs of the US should be considered a matter of national security. We learned in the late 70's what would happen if OPEC played with world oil supplies. They are doing the same thing today. If we wait a little while....Again, that would mean Bush is relying upon McCain, Obama or Clinton to execute his plan. A plan he never did a thing about himself. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.
|
|
|
|
