June 6, 200719 yr I thought that India and China used more than us.' China is expected to reach our current levels in about 20 years. India is using about half of what China uses.
June 6, 200719 yr China is expected to reach our current levels in about 20 years. India is using about half of what China uses. News to me here also. Well, the quandry in my mind, is that as a person who believes that we should all be able to earn a buck. How can we hamstring the people that own the oil companies? In that regard couldn't we also hamstring the electric companies, etc?
June 7, 200719 yr Careful, H. You're starting to sound awful greedy, there. I'm not one for outlandish conspiracy theories, that's all.
June 7, 200719 yr Your missing my point. They have not "earned" the billions in taxes. They simply tax what others have found a market to sell. Leaching so to speak. Maybe I'm the only one that thinks this way. What has government done to get gas into my tank? You mean besides build the roads and and keep them safe so that the tanker trucks can get to the gas stations, or keeping the oceans safe so that tankers can travel freely without fear of "pirates"? Or providing police protection so that store owners can operate with only limited drive offs, or providing subsidies so that some of these companies can continue to make outrageous profits, etc, etc, etc.
June 7, 200719 yr Author You mean besides build the roads and and keep them safe so that the tanker trucks can get to the gas stations, or keeping the oceans safe so that tankers can travel freely without fear of "pirates"? Or providing police protection so that store owners can operate with only limited drive offs, or providing subsidies so that some of these companies can continue to make outrageous profits, etc, etc, etc. What are "outrageous profits" anyway? Is there such a thing as making too much money? Like musicians? Movie stars? Professional athletes?
June 7, 200719 yr What are "outrageous profits" anyway? Is there such a thing as making too much money? Like musicians? Movie stars? Professional athletes? I did not necessarily mean "outrageous" in a perjorative since. However, the oil companies should never be viewed as victims - especially as long as they continue to recieve subsidies. The point was, they receive unnecessary subsidies by the government which aids in the delivery of gas to the pump. It is silly to suggest that the government plays no rule there. i don't think that movie stars, musicisians and professional athletes who make "outrageous" amounts of money also get federal government subsidies.
June 7, 200719 yr Author I did not necessarily mean "outrageous" in a perjorative since. However, the oil companies should never be viewed as victims - especially as long as they continue to recieve subsidies. The point was, they receive unnecessary subsidies by the government which aids in the delivery of gas to the pump. It is silly to suggest that the government plays no rule there. i don't think that movie stars, musicisians and professional athletes who make "outrageous" amounts of money also get federal government subsidies. I would like for you to define what you mean by "subsidies." That itself is a perjorative term. The energy bill provided $2.6 billion in incentives for oil producers and other participants in the fuel industries to develop emerging markets and to increase refinery production and domestic exploration. I know that the Washington Post and New York times call these "subsidies," but when I think of "subsidies" I think of actual cash dollars that are handed to farmers (for example) to help support them. There is very little cash handouts like that in the energy bill. Most of the incentives are in the form of tax exemptions correlated to the amount of money an oil company spends on new domestic exploration or R&D on emerging energy technologies. The oil company spends their own cash, and then they get a tax credit on their profits elsewhere for the amount spent. There is almost no handouts in the energy bill to oil companies, and what little handouts there are are usually grants for "green" technologies such as ethanol. These are the type of tax exemptions that you ought to be in favor of, Ace. We are constantly whining about not taking advantage of our domestic oil reserves, not developing emerging technologies, not being greenhouse friendly, etc. The tax incentives provided by the energy bill encourage the big, bad oil companies to do that. There seems to be some feeling, though, that they really ought to just spend all that money out of the goodness of their own hearts, or ought to not make profits on the backs of all us little guys out of the goodness of their own hearts. Its just not realistic. But, please do not imply that they are making big profits and at the same time the government is also giving them additional cash, because its not accurate.
June 7, 200719 yr You mean besides build the roads and and keep them safe so that the tanker trucks can get to the gas stations, or keeping the oceans safe so that tankers can travel freely without fear of "pirates"? Or providing police protection so that store owners can operate with only limited drive offs, or providing subsidies so that some of these companies can continue to make outrageous profits, etc, etc, etc. No,, that's not what I mean. I'm talking about GASOLINE PRODUCTION. The road work, "pirate problems", police protection, etc.. only applies to gas? What about produce, consumer goods, any freight over the road. We not paying the outlandish taxes on those goods as we are on gas. Your argument is invalid IMO.
June 7, 200719 yr I did not necessarily mean "outrageous" in a perjorative since. However, the oil companies should never be viewed as victims - especially as long as they continue to recieve subsidies. The point was, they receive unnecessary subsidies by the government which aids in the delivery of gas to the pump. It is silly to suggest that the government plays no rule there. i don't think that movie stars, musicisians and professional athletes who make "outrageous" amounts of money also get federal government subsidies. When they perform concerts in stadiums, arenas and other facilities that are built with govt subsidiaries, they sure do benefit from govt subsidiaries. Because the facilities have lower operating costs because of the subsidiaries, the rental costs are lower, which means the performers pay less, which normally means the performers make more.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.