No shock that the R's do not want to make the oil devils mad being they are in bed with them.

 

Senate Republicans blocked a proposal Tuesday to tax the windfall profits of the largest oil companies, despite pleas by Democratic leaders to use the measure to address America's anger over $4 a gallon gasoline.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080610/ap_on_go_co/congress_oil_profits:devil:

Please...

 

Pandering politics at its finest by the Democrats... All this socialist bill would do is increase the cost of gasoline... Who is congress to determine what "reasonable" profits are???

Please...

 

Pandering politics at its finest by the Democrats... All this socialist bill would do is increase the cost of gasoline... Who is congress to determine what "reasonable" profits are???

 

Like that hasn't already gone up to a national record 4.04.9 a gal.

 

Everytime someone comes up with a plan of any kind this is the stuff we, the voter always hear.:ylsuper:

Like that hasn't already gone up to a national record 4.04.9 a gal.

 

Everytime someone comes up with a plan of any kind this is the stuff we, the voter always hear.:ylsuper:

 

It will go up even more if we start taxing profits based on what a bunch of clowns in D.C. think is "reasonable". I outlined this in another thread, if the profits of the oil/gas industry are not "reasonable" then there are 100's of other companies that are going to need to have their profits taxed as well as many of them make significantly great profit margins than the oil companies.

 

This so called "plan" is not a solution and past history has shown that you can not tax your way out of this or any issue.

This (a gas windfall profits tax) was done once before with poor results. Is there anyone on here who really feels like its a good idea, or can we put this one to bed finally?

Please...

 

Pandering politics at its finest by the Democrats... All this socialist bill would do is increase the cost of gasoline... Who is congress to determine what "reasonable" profits are???

 

Who should determine what a reasonable profit is, then? The oil companies themselves?

Who should determine what a reasonable profit is, then? The oil companies themselves?

 

Customers determine what reasonable profits are and competition for those customers sorts out the price/value equation. When customers no longer are willing to pay a price for a product or there is more supply than demand, it usually falls in price. When customers are demanding a product and there is not enough of it to meet the demand prices increase.

This (a gas windfall profits tax) was done once before with poor results. Is there anyone on here who really feels like its a good idea, or can we put this one to bed finally?

 

The horse evidently still is alive... Even after relentless beatings...

Who should determine what a reasonable profit is, then? The oil companies themselves?

It is their product. Should Microsoft be told how much they are allowed to make off of their software? Should Apple be made to sell the Iphone for $100 instead of the $400 they sell for?

It is their product. Should Microsoft be told how much they are allowed to make off of their software? Should Apple be made to sell the Iphone for $100 instead of the $400 they sell for?

 

:thumb:

 

Customers will make this determination. Unless we want to become a socialist society...

:thumb:

 

Customers will make this determination. Unless we want to become a socialist society...

Now on the other side customers are at the mercy of the oil companies as there is no other option. If Apple jacked up the price of the Iphone to $1000 they just wouldn't sell. Oil companies can jack up gas so that they are making 25-30% margins and people would still have to buy it. The only reason I will ever defend oil companies is the low % they make. Yes, it is billions of dollars but if you can't make 8-10% margin you are wasting your time. You can average better then that with mutual funds.

:rolleyes:It sounds like business as usual in Washington. Good example of partisan politics, no middle ground found. My goodness I think a bunch of three year olds could get more accomplished.

 

Thanks NCF for the link-As for the bolded portion below can someone tell why this would not be a good proposal?

 

Separately, Democrats also failed to get Republican support for a proposal to extend tax breaks for wind, solar and other alternative energy development, and for the promotion of energy efficiency and conservation. The tax breaks have either expired or are scheduled to end this year.

 

The tax provisions were included in a broader $50 billion tax measure blocked by a GOP filibuster threat. A vote to take up the measure was 50-44, short of the 60 votes needed.

 

The windfall profits bill would have imposed a 25 percent tax on profits over what would be determined "reasonable" when compared to profits several years ago. The oil companies could have avoided the tax if they invested the money in alternative energy projects or refinery expansion. It also would have rescinded oil company tax breaks — worth $17 billion over the next 10 years — with the revenue to be used for tax incentives to producers of wind, solar and other alternative energy sources as well as for energy conservation.

 

The legislation also would:

_Require traders to put up more collateral in the energy futures markets and open the way for federal regulation of traders who are based in the United States but use foreign trading platforms. The measures are designed to reduce market speculation.

_Make oil and gas price gouging a federal crime, with stiff penalties of up to $5 million during a presidentially declared energy emergency.

_Authorize the Justice Department to bring charges of price fixing against countries that belong to the OPEC oil cartel.

Now on the other side customers are at the mercy of the oil companies as there is no other option. If Apple jacked up the price of the Iphone to $1000 they just wouldn't sell. Oil companies can jack up gas so that they are making 25-30% margins and people would still have to buy it. The only reason I will ever defend oil companies is the low % they make. Yes, it is billions of dollars but if you can't make 8-10% margin you are wasting your time. You can average better then that with mutual funds.

 

There are other options but until now, price has not been a big enough deterrant to push people to those options.

Customers determine what reasonable profits are and competition for those customers sorts out the price/value equation. When customers no longer are willing to pay a price for a product or there is more supply than demand, it usually falls in price. When customers are demanding a product and there is not enough of it to meet the demand prices increase.

 

 

While I don't agree with this tax on the Oil Companies so we can "all be miserable together," I think the notion of simple "supply and demand" can have exceptions.

 

When we are dealing with oil or mediciine/medical - what are the real recourses to effecting the market? Everyone has to drive to work in this world and our current day and age. Maybe when we had neighborhoods within a mile of school or the factory they could all walk but that's simply not the case anymore. Maybe carpooling and public transport (both still use gas) but will there really be enough possibility of that effecting prices?

 

In medical, what is the supply-demand fixer? Where should sick or infirmed individuals go if they can't afford the care at their hospital (even with insurance some co-pays and deductibles can ruin a budget)? What about people who need medicine but balance between a few hundred dollars every month, gas to get to work, food to feed the family?

 

I'm not trying to be smart or act "ugly" towards you or anyone but I'm asking honest questions I have. (When you are as slow as I am it's hard to "get it" sometimes.)

While I don't agree with this tax on the Oil Companies so we can "all be miserable together," I think the notion of simple "supply and demand" can have exceptions.

 

When we are dealing with oil or mediciine/medical - what are the real recourses to effecting the market? Everyone has to drive to work in this world and our current day and age. Maybe when we had neighborhoods within a mile of school or the factory they could all walk but that's simply not the case anymore. Maybe carpooling and public transport (both still use gas) but will there really be enough possibility of that effecting prices?

 

In medical, what is the supply-demand fixer? Where should sick or infirmed individuals go if they can't afford the care at their hospital (even with insurance some co-pays and deductibles can ruin a budget)? What about people who need medicine but balance between a few hundred dollars every month, gas to get to work, food to feed the family?

 

I'm not trying to be smart or act "ugly" towards you or anyone but I'm asking honest questions I have. (When you are as slow as I am it's hard to "get it" sometimes.)

 

Fair enough. I'll look at the flip side of your medical argument. Without great profits, the pharmaceutical companies do not have the capital reserves to take the risk of the millions in research it takes to potentially produce the next drug that will aid millions of people. Especially considering the large cycle time it takes from initial research begins to revenue generated from a drug can be many years. As I stated before, all the politicians, republican and democrat, have proven to be some of the worst money managers in the history of time. Corporations have a vested interest in managing money well or they will cease to exist. I would much rather the corporation have those profit $'s because they will get a far and away better ROI (return on investment) with those dollars than the guys and gals in D.C. will ever come close to.

 

You are right, there are needs to be met through the use of fuel (travel and from work). However, higher prices will cause more discretion in the type of vehicle one choses, number of trips one takes, use of mass transit, use of carpool, speed of electric cars to market, etc., etc.