• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Democrats Demand High Gas Prices?

Mike

Well-known member
Democrats Demand High Gas Prices
Saturday 15 March 2008, by admin



There are two ways to raise the cost of a product. You can raise taxes on the product or you can limit the supply of the product. You can do both, plus you can make it expensive to bring to your market.

So, the Democrats have stopped the additional drilling for oil in Alaska. Then Democrats like Al Gore and Fabian Nunez call for higher gas taxes.

In doing so, they have destroyed 200,000 American jobs, lower gas prices and higher gas tax revenues. The Democrats are economic illiterates, they are socialists who believe government is smarter than the people.

Isn’t it time to vote NO on Democrats? Isn’t it time to explain to the poor and middle class you are being harmed by Nunez, Gore and their ilk?

The time to get angry is now. Every time you fill your tank with gas, a major portion of the costs is due to the policies of Democrats.

Drill in Alaska or pay $5 per gallon for gas—your choice. Democrats or freedom?

Get angry or get poor.

___________________________________________________________

Alaska’s Real Bridge

INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY, 3/14/08

Energy: With oil now $111 a barrel, Alaska’s senators are trying again to persuade Congress to let their state’s massive untapped resources help bring prices down. How high do these prices have to go?

It’ll be a long, hot summer across America with pump prices expected to hit $4 a gallon. It’s no longer doom talk; it’s real.

"Americans are getting fed up with astronomical oil prices being imposed by unstable foreign governments," said Sen. Ted Stevens, "and the problem is getting worse every day."

He and fellow Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski are sponsoring a bill to drill for new oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Within just an 8% sliver of ANWR, some 10.4 billion barrels of oil may be recoverable, enough to beef up supply and cut prices. Stevens says he’s been trying for 25 years to get such a bill passed, as 75% of Alaskans want. But he’s always been thwarted by environmental lobbyists and errant fellow senators — including even John McCain — who busybody Alaskan affairs to everyone’s detriment.

This time Alaska’s two senators are trying to sweeten the deal by setting the trigger point for ANWR drilling at $125 a barrel over five days and dedicating royalties to aid alternative energy.

But the straightforward story right now is that our economy needs oil. Recession looms in part because businesses are being squeezed by high energy prices. Consumer spending is falling. OPEC isn’t budging on production. And prices are going through the roof.

Congress, the Energy Department, presidential candidates and even President Bush talk a good game about "alternative energies" such as ethanol, solar power, batteries and switchgrass. It’s nice sentiment, but it won’t solve our energy problem anytime soon.

A recent study by Cambridge Energy Research Associates found that alternative energy will at best supply 16% of global electric and transport needs — by 2030.

In reality, drilling ANWR is critical, as the two senators urge. "We almost passed it in 2001," Stevens said. "Some said that if we had acted then, we would have had (the oil) to market right now."

Yes, getting oil into production would take time. But Murkowski thinks the very act of passing the bill would damp price speculation. Said Stevens: "There is so much oil out there. It would be a win-win-win across the board in terms of the economy."

No doubt Stevens and Murkowski are also eyeing the 200,000 jobs that ANWR drilling would bring, as well as the $138 billion in taxes and royalties it would generate for government coffers. But most important for now is the fact that it would help ease prices and spray out recession like Raid on roaches.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Makes you wonder why the Repubs when they controlled both Houses of Congress - and even had 6 years of Dumya leading them- didn't pass a law allowing some of this drilling, like in Alaska-- or do anything to lower the prices of oil and gas :???:

I'm finding it hard to believe that with oil at profound record highs and gas prices jumping daily- that have risen all thru the Bush/Cheney (oilmen) reign- that many folks can buy into the answer that the Republicans policies have/will work......
 

Mike

Well-known member
Senate Dems Stop Appropriations, Drilling in ANWR
in the news
2005
By a vote of 56-44, Dems blocked a cloture motion and prevented passage of a $453 billion fiscal 2006 defense appropriations bill. Alaska Republican Ted Stevens had attached a provision to the bill that would have opened up the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling--and this provision ultimately doomed passage.

Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) charged on the Senate floor, "Our military is being held hostage by this issue, Arctic drilling." Calling the provision "another gift to special interests," he said, "It's time we said no to an abuse of power."

All but two Republicans supported cloture (Bill Frist's vote allowed a future vote on the bill). Oregon Senator Gordon Smith voted with the Republican majority, failing to join Lincoln Chafee and Mike DeWine in their effort protect ANWR.

_________________________________________________________
Bush plan for Alaska oil drilling blocked by Democrats filibuster

Democrats in the U.S. Senate succeeded in blocking White House-backed legislation to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Republican supporters of Arctic drilling failed to get the 60 votes needed to prevent a Democratic filibuster aimed at killing the oil exploration provisions.

"It is a real victory for the environmental movement all throughout this country," said Senator Dianne Feinstein of California.

The Senate's move was a disappointment for U.S. President George W. Bush, who had lobbied for passage of the Arctic oil plan as part of a US$453-billion military spending bill that primarily funds U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Supporters of drilling have tried for decades to open a 600,000-hectare section of the refuge in northeastern Alaska to oil firms, arguing it would reduce America's dependence on foreign oil.

But environmentalists, Democratic lawmakers and Canadian officials all claim oil activity would harm wildlife in the pristine wilderness, including the migrating Porcupine caribou herd.

Supporters of drilling had appeared on the verge of success when the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the measure. Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, the Republicans' deputy whip and the party's biggest champion of Arctic drilling, had angrily vowed to keep the Senate in session until it was approved.

But amid the Democratic stalling, most Republicans appeared resigned to stripping the Arctic refuge provisions out of the military-spending bill and trying again to pass the drilling plan when Congress returns in the New Year.

"Obviously, the government of Canada will be extremely pleased" that the drilling provision has been removed from the legislation, said Jasmine Panthaky, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Embassy in Washington.

"It reflects our opposition to the opening of oil and gas development in the Arctic refuge. We intend to continue to monitor developments and oppose any measures that may still allow for drilling in the [caribou] calving grounds."

The pre-Christmas spirit of acrimony in Washington extended to debate over the USA Patriot Act, the sweeping anti-terror legislation passed by Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

A group of four moderate Republicans have joined with Democrats to block renewal of key domestic surveillance provisions in the act -- including roving wiretaps and secret record searches -- which expire on Dec. 31.

"The Patriot Act is scheduled to expire at the end of this year. The terrorist threat is not going to expire at the end of this year," Mr. Bush told reporters.

"This obstruction is inexcusable. The senators obstructing the Patriot Act need to understand that the expiration of this vital law will endanger America and will leave us in a weaker position in the fight against brutal killers."

Patriot Act opponents argue the legislation infringes on the civil liberties of Americans. Their opposition grew after revelations last week that Mr. Bush had secretly authorized domestic spying against terror suspects, bypassing normal requirements that court orders be obtained to conduct such surveillance.

"This is not a time to make irresponsible statements about what happens to this nation if the Patriot Act were to expire," Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont said.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Senate Dems Stop Appropriations, Drilling in ANWR
in the news
2005
By a vote of 56-44, Dems blocked a cloture motion and prevented passage of a $453 billion fiscal 2006 defense appropriations bill. Alaska Republican Ted Stevens had attached a provision to the bill that would have opened up the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling--and this provision ultimately doomed passage.

Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) charged on the Senate floor, "Our military is being held hostage by this issue, Arctic drilling." Calling the provision "another gift to special interests," he said, "It's time we said no to an abuse of power."

All but two Republicans supported cloture (Bill Frist's vote allowed a future vote on the bill). Oregon Senator Gordon Smith voted with the Republican majority, failing to join Lincoln Chafee and Mike DeWine in their effort protect ANWR.

If they had a majority- why didn't they just introduce an "individual" ANWAR bill- and pass it :???: .....Or were they too hell bent on letting their elitist corporate buddies (including their oil buddies) shorterm profiteer in any way they could- totally unregulated- with no thoughts to the future...Kind of like what we've seen in the relation between the cattle and beef industrys.....

Like last years Exxon/Mobils RECORD high profits for any corporate entity ever.... :shock:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Remember this too:

...Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion annually in taxes. That's $27,000,000,000 per year, a number so large it's hard to comprehend. Here's one way to put Exxon's taxes into perspective.

According to IRS data for 2004, the most recent year available:

Total number of tax returns: 130 million

Number of Tax Returns for the Bottom 50%: 65 million

Adjusted Gross Income for the Bottom 50%: $922 billion

Total Income Tax Paid by the Bottom 50%: $27.4 billion

Conclusion: In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes).
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Remember this too:

...Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion annually in taxes. That's $27,000,000,000 per year, a number so large it's hard to comprehend. Here's one way to put Exxon's taxes into perspective.

Thats only 2 months cost of the oilmens "War for Oil" in Iraq..... :roll: :(
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Remember this too:

...Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion annually in taxes. That's $27,000,000,000 per year, a number so large it's hard to comprehend. Here's one way to put Exxon's taxes into perspective.

Thats only 2 months cost of the oilmens "War for Oil" in Iraq..... :roll: :(
There are a few others who donated towards taxes: :lol: :lol:

ARCO
Aera Energy LLC
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company
Amoco
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Apache Corporation
Arbusto Energy
Ashland Inc.
Atwood Oceanics
B
BJ Services Company
Baker Hughes
Baker Hughes INTEQ
Bill Barrett Corporation
Buckeye Pipe Line
Burlington Resources
C
Cabot Oil
Calibre Energy
Caltex
Chemoil
Chevron Corporation
Circle K
Citgo
Clark's Super Gas
Coffeyville Resources LLC
Colonial Pipeline
Conoco Inc.
D
Devon Energy
Diamond Offshore Drilling
Diamond Shamrock
Diamond Shamrock Refining and Marketing Company
E
EOG Resources
Eddy Refining Company
Energen
Energen Resources Corporation
Enterprise GP Holdings
Enterprise Products
Equitable Resources
Ergon (US)
Esso
ExxonMobil
F
Frontier Oil
G
Gate Petroleum
Getty Oil
Giant Industries
Global Partners
GlobalSantaFe Corporation
Gulf Oil
H
Harken Energy
Havemeyer Oil Company
Hess Corporation
Hornbeck Offshore Services
Hunt Petroleum
Hunt Refining Company
K
Kaiser-Francis Oil
Kerr-McGee
Kinder Morgan
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners
Koch Industries
L
Lion Oil
Lucas Oil
M
Marathon Oil
Marathon Petroleum Company
Marland Oil Company
Merit Energy Company
Mobil
Motiva Enterprises
Mountain Fuel Supply Company
Murphy Oil
N
Noble Corporation
Noble Energy
NOCO Energy Corporation
NuStar Energy L.P.
O
Occidental Petroleum
OpenSpirit Corporation
P
Panda Energy International
Paragon Oil
Paramount Petroleum
Parker Drilling Company
Pennzoil
Petrohawk
Pilot Corp.
Pilot Travel Centers
Plains All American Pipeline
P cont.
Prisma Energy International
R
Range Resources
Rentech
Rockefeller family
Rowan Companies
S
SAGCO
STP (motor oil company)
Saga Petroleum LLC
Scorpion Offshore
Scurlock Oil Company
SemGroup
Seven Sisters (oil companies)
Shamrock Oil
Shell Oil Company
Sinclair Oil
Skipco
Speedway SuperAmerica
Standard Oil of Louisiana
Starvin' Marvin's
Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc.
Sunoco
Sunray DX Oil Company
Superior Energy Services
Syntroleum
T
Taylor Energy
Terrible Herbst
Tesco Corporation
Tesoro
Texaco
TransMontaigne
U
United Refining Company
Unocal Corporation
Utah's Tar Sand
V
VECO Corporation
Vacuum Oil Company
Valero Energy Corporation
W
Western Geophysical
William K. Tell, Jr.
Williams Companies
X
XTO Energy
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Remember this too:

...Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion annually in taxes. That's $27,000,000,000 per year, a number so large it's hard to comprehend. Here's one way to put Exxon's taxes into perspective.

Thats only 2 months cost of the oilmens "War for Oil" in Iraq..... :roll: :(
There are a few others who donated towards taxes: :lol: :lol:

ARCO
Aera Energy LLC
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company
Amoco
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Apache Corporation
Arbusto Energy
Ashland Inc.
Atwood Oceanics
B
BJ Services Company
Baker Hughes
Baker Hughes INTEQ
Bill Barrett Corporation
Buckeye Pipe Line
Burlington Resources
C
Cabot Oil
Calibre Energy
Caltex
Chemoil
Chevron Corporation
Circle K
Citgo
Clark's Super Gas
Coffeyville Resources LLC
Colonial Pipeline
Conoco Inc.
D
Devon Energy
Diamond Offshore Drilling
Diamond Shamrock
Diamond Shamrock Refining and Marketing Company
E
EOG Resources
Eddy Refining Company
Energen
Energen Resources Corporation
Enterprise GP Holdings
Enterprise Products
Equitable Resources
Ergon (US)
Esso
ExxonMobil
F
Frontier Oil
G
Gate Petroleum
Getty Oil
Giant Industries
Global Partners
GlobalSantaFe Corporation
Gulf Oil
H
Harken Energy
Havemeyer Oil Company
Hess Corporation
Hornbeck Offshore Services
Hunt Petroleum
Hunt Refining Company
K
Kaiser-Francis Oil
Kerr-McGee
Kinder Morgan
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners
Koch Industries
L
Lion Oil
Lucas Oil
M
Marathon Oil
Marathon Petroleum Company
Marland Oil Company
Merit Energy Company
Mobil
Motiva Enterprises
Mountain Fuel Supply Company
Murphy Oil
N
Noble Corporation
Noble Energy
NOCO Energy Corporation
NuStar Energy L.P.
O
Occidental Petroleum
OpenSpirit Corporation
P
Panda Energy International
Paragon Oil
Paramount Petroleum
Parker Drilling Company
Pennzoil
Petrohawk
Pilot Corp.
Pilot Travel Centers
Plains All American Pipeline
P cont.
Prisma Energy International
R
Range Resources
Rentech
Rockefeller family
Rowan Companies
S
SAGCO
STP (motor oil company)
Saga Petroleum LLC
Scorpion Offshore
Scurlock Oil Company
SemGroup
Seven Sisters (oil companies)
Shamrock Oil
Shell Oil Company
Sinclair Oil
Skipco
Speedway SuperAmerica
Standard Oil of Louisiana
Starvin' Marvin's
Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc.
Sunoco
Sunray DX Oil Company
Superior Energy Services
Syntroleum
T
Taylor Energy
Terrible Herbst
Tesco Corporation
Tesoro
Texaco
TransMontaigne
U
United Refining Company
Unocal Corporation
Utah's Tar Sand
V
VECO Corporation
Vacuum Oil Company
Valero Energy Corporation
W
Western Geophysical
William K. Tell, Jr.
Williams Companies
X
XTO Energy

I'll give you something to do- Find out if they'll pay for the $3 Trillion taxpayer dollars bill that this "war for oil" is now estimated to cost, including the care of the 70,000 injured soldiers wounded there - so far...

The war that could go on indefinitely (McCain says he'll fight 100 years)- that the Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld neocon oilmen team said would be over in a short time- as I remember Cheney told us the additional manpower requested by the military before they invaded wasn't needed as "the Iraqis will welcome us as Liberators with open arms" :roll: ....

Kind of the same flawed thinking as their oil policies- but the longer we're there, the more Cheneys buddies (Halliburton/etal) can profiteer- the same as they are with the $100+ oil.....

If only more of today's military personnel would realize that they are being used by the owning elite's as a publicly subsidized capitalist goon squad
-- Major General Smedley Butler

Why don't those damn oil companies fly their own flags on their personal property-maybe a flag with a gas pump on it.
-- Major General Smedley Butler
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oil Companies Getting A Free Ride?
By Rob on January 17, 2007 at 12:36 pm 28 Comments
I had to laugh when I read this:

(CNSNews.com) - Activists from more than a dozen environmental groups gathered on Capitol Hill Tuesday to lobby for the Clean Energy Act, the final part of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) “100-hour” agenda that the activists are calling a “first step” in restructuring the government’s energy policy. . . .

“While the oil companies experience record profits, the federal government has been giving them a free ride,” Jeff Rickert, vice president of the Apollo Alliance, charged during a news conference Tuesday.

A free ride? Here’s what Exxon Mobil paid in state and federal taxes in the third quarter of 2006 alone:

Income taxes: $7.68 billion
Excise taxes: $7.76 billion
All other taxes: $10.79 billion

Total taxes remitted/paid: $26.24 billion

You know how much they made, net, in the third quarter? $10.49 billion. Which means they paid about 2.5 times more in taxes than they made in profit.

Can you imagine how much cheaper your gas would be if companies like Exxon Mobil didn’t have to pay $26 billion in taxes every quarter? Or even just had to pay half of it?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Can you imagine how much cheaper your gas would be if companies like Exxon Mobil didn’t have to pay $26 billion in taxes every quarter? Or even just had to pay half of it?

That would just mean their CEO could make another $50 million a year- and their retiring CEO could get another $100 million or so in ballon retirement payments or "golden parachutes" for getting caught ripping off the stockholders :???: :shock: :roll: Which GW would just give a clemency too :( :mad: Laws or the Constitution no longer seem to exist for this Administration or the elitist rich.... :( :( :mad:

In the last 10 years- CEO's/Corporate Administrations compensation has increased at 400+% of the working man :shock: :( :( :mad:

But they are so greedy they have to get their paid off man in the White House to allow any illegal invader that wants to enter the country access so the can get cheaper semi-slave labor to be their maids, nannys, pool cleaners, etc. etc.... :( :mad:
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
gone...

EDITED is what I meant. I think some thought I was "gone" from here.
Not so. And I agree with what Red Robin just posted. In order to keep business IN TOWN, you must support that business. Sometimes price gets in the way PERHAPS TOO MUCH. We must remember to compare apples to apples. If you get a better buy out of town, look at what else it entails.
Add that to the cost; plus keeping a business IN TOWN is a great convenience--because you won't be able to always travel for the BEST BUY. Local businesses INVEST in their communities. Sure, they have to make a profit, but they are also there because they believe in their town.
It is an investment in that town as well as in the people who trade there.

It was said that our local grocery store was higher priced. NOT SO!! They know their competition comes from the larger towns in that trade area.
They go on a routine basis to check prices in other stores to stay competitive. Working with the local stores as ad rep for the local paper, I know first hand what goes on. I remember the manager of the grocery store on the phone with a supplier of pop. He was arguing with them over their prices at the store in the larger town. His COST was more than they were selling their pop for; and he was arguing in order to keep local business from having to pay a higher price. There is alot that goes on behind the scenes that customers never know about.

I always say, buy from someone you trust. You usually won't be disappointed. There are exceptions, of course. But year in and year out,
you can pretty much bank on it. And that goes for bulls, groceries, fuel, the whole works.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it! :p

Sorry if I confused anyone with my editing. :)
 

Richard Doolittle

Well-known member
Quote:
If only more of today's military personnel would realize that they are being used by the owning elite's as a publicly subsidized capitalist goon squad
-- Major General Smedley Butler


Quote:
Why don't those damn oil companies fly their own flags on their personal property-maybe a flag with a gas pump on it.
-- Major General Smedley Butler

General Butler died in 1940.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Richard Doolittle said:
Quote:
If only more of today's military personnel would realize that they are being used by the owning elite's as a publicly subsidized capitalist goon squad
-- Major General Smedley Butler


Quote:
Why don't those damn oil companies fly their own flags on their personal property-maybe a flag with a gas pump on it.
-- Major General Smedley Butler

General Butler died in 1940.

Also:
"He was eventually diagnosed with "nervous breakdown" in 1908 and he was given 9 months sick leave."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Richard Doolittle said:
Quote:
If only more of today's military personnel would realize that they are being used by the owning elite's as a publicly subsidized capitalist goon squad
-- Major General Smedley Butler


Quote:
Why don't those damn oil companies fly their own flags on their personal property-maybe a flag with a gas pump on it.
-- Major General Smedley Butler

General Butler died in 1940.

Also:
"He was eventually diagnosed with "nervous breakdown" in 1908 and he was given 9 months sick leave."

I suppose a sign of human weakness makes him a "damn coward" in your neocon war hawk mind-EH Mike :???: :wink: :lol: Or could it be the fact of what this war hero was able to realize that many now have come to know- and actually had the backbone to speak out about it...His illness couldn't have hurt his career too bad- as a Major General rank in the Marines is nothing to sneeze at......

That most wars are started by old men who send young men off to die and be maimed- for the profiteering of the old mens and corporate interests.....

I've seen studies that say as many as 300,000 US troops will be so badly psychologicaly injured by the war that they will need extended psychological and psychiatric treatment over many years to come ...


During his 34 years of Marine Corps service, Butler was awarded numerous medals for heroism including the Marine Corps Brevet Medal (the highest Marine medal at its time for officers), and subsequently the Medal of Honor twice. Notably, he is one of only 19 people to be twice awarded the Medal of Honor, and one of only three to be awarded a Marine Corps Brevet Medal and a Medal of Honor, and the only person to be awarded a Marine Corps Brevet Medal and a Medal of Honor for two different actions.


From his 1935 book, War Is a Racket
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruitSmedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940), nicknamed "The Fighting Quaker" and "Old Gimlet Eye," was a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps and, at the time of his death, the most decorated Marine in U.S. history companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
 

fff

Well-known member
Except oil companies don't pay taxes on all their profits. The Republican Congress has given them tax breaks. Dems have tried to recind them, but Republicans refuse. We'll see what happens in 2009.

From April 2005:

The House this week will consider $8 billion in tax breaks targeted to the energy industry at a time when some of those companies are enjoying soaring profits from high consumer prices.

The vast majority of the tax breaks would benefit companies that produce and supply traditional forms of energy, with a large portion going to the oil and natural gas sector.

The House legislation, approved last week by the Ways and Means Committee, is at odds with the Bush administration's approach. The president's proposed budget calls for $6.7 billion in tax breaks for energy, with 72 percent going toward renewable sources of energy and energy efficiency, compared with about 6 percent in the House plan.

Dana M. Perino, a White House spokeswoman, would not comment on the House measure but referred to comments made by President Bush last week. "I will tell you with $55 oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore," Bush said in a speech to newspaper editors in Washington. "There are plenty of incentives. What we need is to put a strategy in place that will help this country over time become less dependent."

Crude oil prices have been high because of increasing demand that has pushed production close to its limits. That has helped send the cost of gasoline at the gas pump to record highs in recent weeks. The price of other sources of energy have been unusually high as well.

For the oil and gas industry, the legislation allows some costs associated with exploration to be deducted over a shorter time period and provides tax benefits when oil and gas production is delayed and a lease is extended. It reduces the depreciation period for natural gas distribution and gathering lines as well as the depreciation period for electricity transmission and pollution-reducing facilities added to some coal-fired power plants.

The measure also includes some tax credits for solar energy equipment, fuel cells and energy efficiency improvements to existing homes.

Environmentalists are outraged, saying the bill provides giveaways to big energy companies, such as ExxonMobil Corp., whose 2004 profits set a record. "The energy bill is just another example of the House Republican leadership overreaching for corporate interests," said Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth.

Navin Nayak of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group said the measure should have included tax breaks for hybrid cars, wind energy production and other efficiency and renewable energy items included in failed 2003 energy legislation. "They've clearly gone on a junk-food diet," Nayak said of the House. "They've cut out everything healthy."

The tax package will be considered as part of a larger energy bill that is expected to be debated before the full House beginning tomorrow. The Senate, where a similar energy bill failed in 2003 after a filibuster, is still crafting its new version. The Bush administration has said passage of the legislation is a top priority and will help address increasing prices, a contention disputed by opponents.

House Republicans stood by the measure, which provides the $8 billion in tax savings over a 10-year period. It was approved by the committee in a 26 to 11 vote that was generally along party lines but with five Democrats supporting the legislation and one Republican voting against it.

Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) said that he and some other committee members wanted a larger percentage of the tax breaks going for energy efficiency and renewable energy, but that Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) did not want to add those, as a way of gaining negotiating power with the Senate.

"It's not always pretty watching this stuff happen, and some of us were concerned," Foley said. "There's a lot of give and take that has to occur. [Thomas] plays a better hand of poker than I do, so I'll have to defer to him at this point."

Christin Baker, a spokeswoman for Thomas, pointed to comments Thomas made before the committee vote in which he said he expects the percentage of tax breaks for traditional energy companies to decrease before a final bill is drafted.

"Members of this committee perhaps cannot, in this bill, express their full support for a wide range of diversified energy production," Thomas said. He added that negotiations with the Senate will lead to legislation that "will look somewhat different and more diversified than the measure before the committee today."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63958-2005Apr18.html

Or this:

Oil and Gas Tax Breaks: $2.4 billion a year
Like the percentage depletion allowance just described, the oil depletion allowance lets certain companies deduct 15% of the gross income they derive from oil and gas wells from their taxable incomes, and continue to do that for as long as those wells are still producing. Some smaller companies get to increase the deduction by 1% for every dollar the price of oil falls below $20 a barrel.
This tax break, on which we lose about $1 billion a year, can add up to many times the cost of the original exploration and drilling. In fact, it formerly could amount to 100% of the company's profits-in which case the company paid no taxes, no matter how much money it made. Presently this is capped at 65% of profits.
The rationale for this loophole is that it encourages exploration for new oil-presumably something no oil company would otherwise do. Oil industry executives argue that other businesses are allowed to depreciate the costs of their manufacturing investments. That's true, but they're only allowed to take off the actual cost of those assets, not deduct 15% of their gross income virtually forever.
Introduced in 1926, the oil depletion allowance was restricted in 1975 to independent oil companies that don't refine or import oil. To make up for this, the larger, integrated companies were given the intangible drilling cost deduction, which in some ways is even better.
It lets them deduct 70% of the cost of setting up a drilling operation in the year those expenses occur, rather than having to depreciate them over the expected life of the well. The other 30% they can take off over the next five years. This boondoggle costs us about $500 million a year.
A third tax break is the enhanced oil recovery credit. It encourages oil companies to go after reserves that are more expensive to extract-like those that have nearly been depleted, or that contain especially thick crude oil. The net effect of this credit, which costs us $500 million a year, is that we pay almost twice as much for gasoline made from domestic oil as we do for gas made from foreign oil.
Together, these three loopholes sometimes exceed 100% of the value of the energy produced by that oil. In other words, it would be cheaper in some cases for the government to just buy gasoline from the companies and give it to taxpayers free of charge.
(Of course, without the tax breaks, the oil companies would charge more for gasoline, bringing our prices closer to other countries'. This would undoubtedly lower our per capita consumption of gasoline, which is currently the highest in the world.)
There's a fourth tax break we can't count because we can't estimate its size; for details on it, see the section on "master limited partnerships" in the chapter called What we've left out. But miscellaneous smaller tax breaks and subsidies add an additional $400 million a year to the oil industry's wealthfare, which brings the total to $2.4 billion.
Instead of throwing $2.4 billion a year at the oil companies, we could encourage them to cut down on waste during production and transport. Each year, the equivalent of a thousand Exxon Valdez spills is lost due to inefficient refining, leaking wells and storage tanks, spills at oil fields and from tankers and pipelines, evaporative losses, un-recycled motor oil and the like.
The current oil and gas tax breaks encourage the use of fossil fuels at the expense of cleaner alternatives, reward drilling in environmentally sensitive areas like wetlands and estuaries, and artificially attract to the oil industry investment money that could be used more productively in other areas of the economy.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/Oil_Tax_Breaks.html
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Fff who do you think owns the blooming oil companies? They are publicly traded. It's just another tax on the average joe's pension plan which the democrats are wildly for.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
and actually had the backbone to speak out about it...

If he felt that way about all those conflicts and wars he took part in then why did he not have the backbone to do something about it at the time instead of just write a book about it after he done it all?

Pretty low life person that would carry out orders and partake in those things all in the name of what he thought was big business.

To me he sounds like a disgruntled employee who got fired or did not get something he wanted from his job. Or just another Liberal that wants to make the U.S. out to be some bad country.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
aplusmnt said:
Oldtimer said:
and actually had the backbone to speak out about it...

If he felt that way about all those conflicts and wars he took part in then why did he not have the backbone to do something about it at the time instead of just write a book about it after he done it all?

Pretty low life person that would carry out orders and partake in those things all in the name of what he thought was big business.

To me he sounds like a disgruntled employee who got fired or did not get something he wanted from his job. Or just another Liberal that wants to make the U.S. out to be some bad country.

You know what happeded to Admiral Fallon when he had the courage to speak up :???:

Someday you'll realize as you get older you truly do get wiser- and use more of your brain/emotions to make decisions with-- and the reasoning for things you did in the past becomes much more sensible/unsensible...

It sounds to me like he wrote these after he retired and had time to reflect on what he'd done.....Kind of like Powell lamenting on his involvement in promoting the GW lies- and all the Generals that have came out and now said they were overrode on their decisions by Rummy/DoD- and we were wrong with the invasion of Iraq....

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of displaced power exists and will persist."
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
 
Top