StreetScooby 5 #1 June 9, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-usa-politics.html Quote "I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills," the Illinois senator said. Unbelievable. Yep, this guy is going to change things. And they're going to be much worse.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #2 June 9, 2008 You seem so scared I guess maybe that's a good thing. Change scares people. Performance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #3 June 9, 2008 And you're not? You believe in this guy? I have no doubt that Obama is going to change things. I also have no doubt that things will get much worse under Obama.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #4 June 9, 2008 QuoteAnd you're not? You believe in this guy? Yep, I do. Now, I don't believe he gets everything right for a second, and I think he's naive on a few items, but I believe in his message and his intent. I also happen to believe that McCain is a good choice. He was #1 on my list when Hillary was the competition. He too, like Obama, has items I disagree on. Both candidates are 'different' from what we've had the last few presidents (bush/clinton/clinton/bush/bush) and that, IMO, is a good thing. Of the two of them, Obama's message resonates with me more, which is why I choose to back him. I think it's safe to say we all agree that no candidate is going to be perfect, and there are going to be items that we don't agree on. I think it's also important to understand WHAT exactly a president can do (most people think they have a LOT more power than they actually do). Some of the items that we disagree on are platform items that'll never get through the system anyway. Right now, I believe, Obama is a good unifying force. Of course not everyone will agree, but overall I believe it to be true...and right now, the country needs a little unity IMO. Blues, IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #5 June 9, 2008 Obama's plan for windfall profits tax on oil companies - bad McCain's plan for billion dollar tax breaks for oil companies - worse Obama's proposed overhaul of the tax code - good idea McCain's plan for face to face debates - good idea Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #6 June 9, 2008 Quote but I believe in his message and his intent. He's an eloquent speaker. He says whatever he wants, depending upon the audience. He doesn't have any concrete plan to actually effect change. The basis for his change are consisently based upon failed liberal policies.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #7 June 9, 2008 Quote Obama's plan for windfall profits tax on oil companies - bad McCain's plan for billion dollar tax breaks for oil companies - worse Obama's proposed overhaul of the tax code - good idea McCain's plan for face to face debates - good idea Ah, yes, because, of course, companies NEVER pass down increases like that to the consumers, no, of course not... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #8 June 9, 2008 >Ah, yes, because, of course, companies NEVER pass down increases >like that to the consumers, no, of course not... Did you actually read my reply before you hit "POST?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #9 June 9, 2008 Thank you for focusing on a real issue this time. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #10 June 10, 2008 Quote http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-usa-politics.html Quote "I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills," the Illinois senator said. Unbelievable. Yep, this guy is going to change things. And they're going to be much worse. Windfall profits tax is a lousy idea. It was bad when Hillary mentioned it and it's bad now. Unless of course he's not serious about the actual tax and is playing a political move in order to do two things: get the energy debate going and to get his opposition on record as "supporting" the oil companies. IMHO, the debate should not be about a new kookie tax but more about repealing subsidies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #11 June 10, 2008 Quote Ah, yes, because, of course, companies NEVER pass down increases like that to the consumers, no, of course not... And they should. We get ourselves into trouble when we hide the true costs of things which is what you're doing when you take money out of the front pocket at the pump and the back pocket via the Treasury. If gas cost us $4/gal 10 years ago the SUV craze would have crashed and we'd all be driving plug in Hybrids by now. Possibly and overstatement but you get the idea. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,648 #12 June 10, 2008 Quote Quote Ah, yes, because, of course, companies NEVER pass down increases like that to the consumers, no, of course not... And they should. We get ourselves into trouble when we hide the true costs of things which is what you're doing when you take money out of the front pocket at the pump and the back pocket via the Treasury. If gas cost us $4/gal 10 years ago the SUV craze would have crashed and we'd all be driving plug in Hybrids by now. Possibly and overstatement but you get the idea. If the price of gas included the cost of its environmental damage and continued energy sustainability, it would (and would have) cost a lot more.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #13 June 10, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Ah, yes, because, of course, companies NEVER pass down increases like that to the consumers, no, of course not... And they should. We get ourselves into trouble when we hide the true costs of things which is what you're doing when you take money out of the front pocket at the pump and the back pocket via the Treasury. If gas cost us $4/gal 10 years ago the SUV craze would have crashed and we'd all be driving plug in Hybrids by now. Possibly and overstatement but you get the idea. If the price of gas included the cost of its environmental damage and continued energy sustainability, it would (and would have) cost a lot more. idrankwhat's statement is dead on the money - the government should NOT be subsidizing any businesses or industries because that creates damage that can be hidden for decades the perfessor's is so nebulous as to be completely pointless - but it does sound very executive-like, something a VP in marketting might say to a group of engineers ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilot-one 0 #14 June 10, 2008 Yea that's it. More give aways. That's what we need. Or is that take aways? If you're on welfare you might like Obama. Otherwise you are in for a wake up call. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #15 June 10, 2008 I've got a somewhat related question regarding oil/gas supply. Folks like Sean Hannity call for "energy independence" via drilling here in ANWR and offshore. Let's forget about the reality that drilling more here at home will do nothing to make us energy "independent" due to our consumption habits. Since we don't have a nationalized oil system, what would make anyone think that the additional oil extracted would benefit the US gasoline market? What incentive would oil companies have to sell us cheaper fuel? They're multinational companies who are in the business to make money, not provide us with cheaper gas. Short of calling for nationalized petroleum, I don't see how it would make much difference with the exception of the relatively minor influx into the global supply. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #16 June 10, 2008 QuoteQuote but I believe in his message and his intent. He doesn't have any concrete plan to actually effect change. That didn't stop anyone from voting for Bush two times. I agree, we need change related to energy and his plan will make sure that happens._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #17 June 10, 2008 QuoteI don't see how it would make much difference with the exception of the relatively minor influx into the global supply. It won't have any impact. You still have the infrastructure and exploration costs that will be pushed onto us. Also the oil won't be pushed to market right away and some will even be used to top off our reserves. It's a short term solution with no vision since it uses a resource with an expiration date on it._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #18 June 10, 2008 What would make anyone think that's a real question? more obtuse version for the less subtle folks: Was that 'really' a question? (a question initiated with "what would make anyone think.......") agree, 'more oil' wouldn't necessarily increase supply to the point that competition would lower prices - you'd need more "oil companies" entering the market (unlikely as it's not a big enough supply to attract additional players), plus refineries, plus fewer formulations/regulations, plus less taxes on the product and the suppliers, plus alternate energy sources to provide a more dynamic level of competition to trigger the old supply/demand response I think there are sufficient barriers to any one of these things to make the 'drill more' argument a bit of an oversimplification. Drill more is fine, but it takes a lot of supporting efforts in the background to enable it that isn't friendly to a quick soundbite. strange how so many of these barriers are a direct result of (albeit naive but well intentioned) gov meddling - don't ya think? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #19 June 10, 2008 I like to think of "Drill more" as a soundbite to mean - change the infrastructure, develop alternate energy, actually go drill more oil, eliminate subsidies and restrictions, simplify the tax penalties, open the free market to more than just oil, stop blocking production of nuclear plant construction, etc we should be "drilling" for all kinds of energy. "anwar" is just a symbol for some groups of how gov and the wrong kind of environmental activism restricts our ability to do those things. The win to allow responsible drilling there might help change the culture in the right way, but I doubt it. of course, 'anwar' to SOME is actually just a few million gallons of oil that they think will 'fix' it.It takes all kinds. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #20 June 10, 2008 Quotestrange how so many of these barriers are a direct result of (albeit naive but well intentioned) gov meddling - Yep. More government is rarely a good answer, if ever.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #21 June 10, 2008 > you'd need more "oil companies" entering the market (unlikely as it's >not a big enough supply to attract additional players), plus refineries, plus >fewer formulations/regulations, plus less taxes on the product and the >suppliers . . . . Since refinery output has been decreasing over the past year or so, and costs are _fairly_ level from state to state, I don't think that would have much of an effect. > plus less taxes on the product and the suppliers . . . . This would indeed reduce costs. However, it would also require an increase in income tax (or pick your tax of the day) to continue to pay to maintain our infrastructure - and in general I think income taxes are high enough. > plus alternate energy sources to provide a more dynamic level of > competition to trigger the old supply/demand response The availability of competitive sources would not, in and of itself, reduce oil prices. Profit margins are pretty thin now. However, a significant additional supply of energy would reduce the demand for gasoline, and that would definitely reduce prices. For this to work, the new supply has to grow faster than our demand is growing. That would be difficult, but could be done with enough effort. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #22 June 10, 2008 Nuclear is the only choice we currently have that can hope to meet our energy needs going forward.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #23 June 10, 2008 > Nuclear is the only choice we currently have . . . Nuclear will be one part of the solution, but cannot be the only solution. We will still need peaker power for electricity, and we will still need liquid fuel for transportation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #24 June 10, 2008 Quote >The availability of competitive sources would not, in and of itself, reduce oil prices. .......However, a significant additional supply of energy would reduce the demand for gasoline, and that would definitely reduce prices. so you disagree, then you agree ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #25 June 10, 2008 Quote> This would indeed reduce costs. However, it would also require an increase in income tax (or pick your tax of the day) to continue to pay to maintain our infrastructure - and in general I think income taxes are high enough. So, you think in terms of a fixed budget then? I'm all for direct general fund taxes that are clearly visible, over subsidies of 'favored' industry that are hidden. If people could see the costs, then more drive to reduce general fund spending may happen. But it definitely won't happen if it's hidden away ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
