Oil execs defend huge profits before Senate

AEGeneral · #1 05-21-2008, 10:05 PM

Oil execs defend huge profits before Senate - Oil & energy - MSNBC.com

Quote:

Top executives of the five largest oil companies tried to shift anger over high prices to a debate over supplies Wednesday, leading a senator to accuse them of acting like “hapless victims” while racking up record profits.

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill, accused the corporate executives of ignoring the plight of people suffering because of high energy prices. “Where is your corporate conscience?” he asked them.

You're one to talk about a conscience, Durbin, with the Soviet gulag comparisons you've made in the recent past.

Quote:

Senate Democrats recently announced an energy package that would tax “windfall” profits of the five companies.

And we'll all have to pay more for gas as a result. When are these idiot politicians going to wake up? Do they really think they're just going to absorb any new taxes without passing them on?

mcclane · #2 05-21-2008, 10:14 PM

I know this will sound strange, but these oil companies main objective is to make money, so i don't know why the oil companies have to face a tribunal over making profits.

yes, the profits they are making are huge, no arguments there. Is there collusion amongst the companies ? Hard to say. Are they conspiring to jack up prices to pad their profits ? again, hard to say.

Regardless, at least i know what the oil companie's are doing and that is to make alot of money. On the other hand, one can only speculate the objectives of an environmentalist.

Dennis · #3 05-30-2008, 06:54 PM

I have tried to find data on how much the government gets in the form of taxes on gas. I have seen that they got $90 billion last year on income taxes alone (41% of their earnings), but no data on how much they benefit from federal and state taxes or sales taxes on oil products. Adding those taxes to the income taxes and we would see that the one that should be chastised for its unearned windfall is the government itself.

mcclane · #4 05-30-2008, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis

I have tried to find data on how much the government gets in the form of taxes on gas. I have seen that they got $90 billion last year on income taxes alone (41% of their earnings), but no data on how much they benefit from federal and state taxes or sales taxes on oil products. Adding those taxes to the income taxes and we would see that the one that should be chastised for its unearned windfall is the government itself.

I know up here, the federal gov't rakes in about 43% of all gas sales. The oil companies (if it is true) rakes in about 1 or 2%.

Dennis · #5 05-30-2008, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcclane

I know up here, the federal gov't rakes in about 43% of all gas sales. The oil companies (if it is true) rakes in about 1 or 2%.

Here in Califronia it is $.18 state, .18 federal plus sales tax (minimum is 7.25%) On one gallon of gas at $2.50 the sales tax is .18125. At $4.20 the sales tax is $.3045. I don't think the government minds high fuel prices at all.

mcclane · #6 05-30-2008, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis

Here in Califronia it is $.18 state, .18 federal plus sales tax (minimum is 7.25%) On one gallon of gas at $2.50 the sales tax is .18125. At $4.20 the sales tax is $.3045. I don't think the government minds high fuel prices at all.

probablly not ! as long as the gov't uses that money responsibly, then ok i can live with it, but how much you trust gov't to spend your tax money responsibly is the real question.

Dennis · #7 05-31-2008, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcclane

probablly not ! as long as the gov't uses that money responsibly, then ok i can live with it, but how much you trust gov't to spend your tax money responsibly is the real question.

I live in California, Sacramento doesn't do anything responsibly, much less spend responsibly. Even our gas tax dollars that actually go to traffic mitigation is spent on mass transit or car pool lanes, when less money could be spent more effectively just by expanding the number of lanes on our freeways.

AEGeneral · #8 05-31-2008, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis

I live in California, Sacramento doesn't do anything responsibly, much less spend responsibly. Even our gas tax dollars that actually go to traffic mitigation is spent on mass transit or car pool lanes, when less money could be spent more effectively just by expanding the number of lanes on our freeways.

Ugh. Sacramento? Did you catch this article?

EDITORIAL: Bill to restrict car use an open power grab : North County Times - Californian

Quote:

The prevailing mood in Sacramento seems to be that if government can't entice Californians to use mass transit, then it will force them to use it.

The above seems to be behind yet another legislative attempt to regulate how and where we live by targeting our air-polluting cars. With hope, this try will die in the California Assembly, but we fear that hope could end up being wishful thinking.

State Senate Bill 375 is being pushed by state Sen. Darrell Steinberg, a Sacramento Democrat, as the topper for a list of measures drafted to help curb global warming.

No matter how one dresses up the language, however, the intent is to transfer even more power to the state to force residents in urban areas to use mass transit. It also would increase pressure on local governments to speed approval of so-called "more affordable" housing closer to jobs. (more)

I fully admit that I use HOV lanes solely to pass people. The state of Tennessee had no choice but to create so many miles of them back in the 90s courtesy of Clinton. It was either that, or lose about 80% of federal funding for roads.

Luckily for us (the way I see it), around Memphis they were implemented in areas where it is of little advantage to use them. Might not be the case as the population expands outward away from inner-city crime, but most of them are in outlying areas of I-40 outside the city limits. But who's to say with the current state of gas prices & home construction that there might be an influx of people back into the city, which would reverse what has been the norm for decades.

As far as freeway expansion goes, I can't remember a day since I started driving a car that there wasn't some kind of highway construction going on. We're constantly adding flyovers, widening bridges and expanding lanes to improve traffic flow to & from the suburbs. Perhaps the minorities that benefit from a lot of those jobs have a lot to do with it. Environmentalism doesn't have near the same importance here as opposed to California.

Dennis · #9 05-31-2008, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AEGeneral

Ugh. Sacramento? Did you catch this article?

EDITORIAL: Bill to restrict car use an open power grab : North County Times - Californian

I fully admit that I use HOV lanes solely to pass people. The state of Tennessee had no choice but to create so many miles of them back in the 90s courtesy of Clinton. It was either that, or lose about 80% of federal funding for roads.

Luckily for us (the way I see it), around Memphis they were implemented in areas where it is of little advantage to use them. Might not be the case as the population expands outward away from inner-city crime, but most of them are in outlying areas of I-40 outside the city limits. But who's to say with the current state of gas prices & home construction that there might be an influx of people back into the city, which would reverse what has been the norm for decades.

As far as freeway expansion goes, I can't remember a day since I started driving a car that there wasn't some kind of highway construction going on. We're constantly adding flyovers, widening bridges and expanding lanes to improve traffic flow to & from the suburbs. Perhaps the minorities that benefit from a lot of those jobs have a lot to do with it. Environmentalism doesn't have near the same importance here as opposed to California.

Fortunately, this bill has little chance of success. If this guy wants to stop me from driving I suggest he do like that kid with the tank in Beijing and lay down in front of my Jeep. If I do happen to run over him I'll make sure to back up to see if he's OK.

I recall that just last year or so Oregon was looking into mandating that all cars be equipped with GPS units so their use could be tracked. The reasoning, shrinking gas tax revenue because people were using more efficient vehicles leading the politicians to look at ways at taxing distance, not fuel used. We can't win for losing. Still, were such law to be passed I think that it would be challenged as a threat to "our right to privacy."

AEGeneral · #10 06-02-2008, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis

Fortunately, this bill has little chance of success. If this guy wants to stop me from driving I suggest he do like that kid with the tank in Beijing and lay down in front of my Jeep. If I do happen to run over him I'll make sure to back up to see if he's OK.

I recall that just last year or so Oregon was looking into mandating that all cars be equipped with GPS units so their use could be tracked. The reasoning, shrinking gas tax revenue because people were using more efficient vehicles leading the politicians to look at ways at taxing distance, not fuel used. We can't win for losing. Still, were such law to be passed I think that it would be challenged as a threat to "our right to privacy."

I'm in favor of mandating one of these in every car:

YouTube - Suburban Auto Group Trunk Monkey #4 - Thrown off a Bridge

I had heard years ago that GPS units were mandatory in England so that everyone's speed could be tracked. Don't know if that was just a rumor or not, but the fact that I thought it believable says something.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode