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.

 

 

I'm certainly not arguing that your explanation doesn't have merit. I'm merely speaking from the practical side that many may not have the financial means to wait for the "payoff" on the drug development and so they do not receive the medicine they need to survive. (Look I'm not arguing for National Health Care though I agree it sounds like it. I'm looking at the reality of some things don't really have a "check and balance" to influence the "supply/demand" economics.)

I'm certainly not arguing that your explanation doesn't have merit. I'm merely speaking from the practical side that many may not have the financial means to wait for the "payoff" on the drug development and so they do not receive the medicine they need to survive. (Look I'm not arguing for National Health Care though I agree it sounds like it. I'm looking at the reality of some things don't really have a "check and balance" to influence the "supply/demand" economics.)

 

 

I understand where you are coming from and it is a balance which is why Medicaid/Medicare exists (I agree that they are not the best solutions, but that is what you get when D.C. is involved). I guess my argument would be that yes medical care is costly, just like many other things in life. I work to be able to afford those needs in my life and do not expect the government to meet those type of needs.

The bill was stupid. It should have been blocked.

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.

 

Here's a thought: Maybe those pharmaceutical companies could spend their capital reserves on finding a cure for cancer, or Alzheimer's, or AIDS, rather than ridiculous vanity drugs that have an astronomically high profit margin, and the gadzillions of dollars they're paying to advertise them. Drugs shouldn't need to be advertised; if it's a good enough product, your doctor will know about it and recommend it.

Here's a thought: Maybe those pharmaceutical companies could spend their capital reserves on finding a cure for cancer, or Alzheimer's, or AIDS, rather than ridiculous vanity drugs that have an astronomically high profit margin, and the gadzillions of dollars they're paying to advertise them. Drugs shouldn't need to be advertised; if it's a good enough product, your doctor will know about it and recommend it.

 

I agree to a degree. You are right, I do not think they need to spend all the ad dollars that are spent or probably as many sales reps as they fund, but IMO it is still far better to keep those dollars in the framework of the corp than the US government. What ROI is the government going to get on those dollars? This I can guarantee, the US government is not going to find the cure to the diseases you mention... One of those pharma companies is. Yes there are a lot of "vanity" drugs out there, but there are 100's more that are impacting cancer, AIDS, etc. than ED. Although one could argue there are medical and psychological impacts of ED as well that warrant those dollars.

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???

 

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?

 

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?

 

The bill was stupid. It should have been blocked.

 

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

Wonder why Harry Reid voted against this "great" piece of legislation?

 

LINK

 

Then he complained about Republican obstructionism.

 

Link 2

The dems crack me up making crazy plans like this one, then they yell at George Bush for not convincing the Saudis to drill more oil in their country but they aren't willing to let us drill more oil in our country. What hypocrites!

It feels like some on here really have a grudge against someone making huge profits. Do you really want to be a part of a company or own stock in a company that doesn't want to make a profit? When did making a profit become so bad?

It feels like some on here really have a grudge against someone making huge profits. Do you really want to be a part of a company or own stock in a company that doesn't want to make a profit? When did making a profit become so bad?

Profits are not bad. But record profit amounts every single quarter at the expense of consumers by gouging prices is an absolute joke and borderline criminal.

Profits are not bad. But record profit amounts every single quarter at the expense of consumers by gouging prices is an absolute joke and borderline criminal.

 

 

I hear people make this argument all of the time with little to back it up with. How much of each gallon of gas sold do the oil companies make as a profit? $1.00? $2.00? or maybe $3.00? It would be interesting to see how much they are actually "gouging" the consumers, and also how much the government is profiting off each gallon of gas?

For the record, the nation's largest petroleum distributor, Valero, posted $90 million in losses last quarter. My sister-in-law works for them.

I hear people make this argument all of the time with little to back it up with. How much of each gallon of gas sold do the oil companies make as a profit? $1.00? $2.00? or maybe $3.00? It would be interesting to see how much they are actually "gouging" the consumers, and also how much the government is profiting off each gallon of gas?

4% of the price of gas is profit to the oil companies. 15% goes to the government in the form of taxes.

I think its hillarious when they talk about "the BIG Oil Companies". Well since this is a publically traded company everyone has the opportunity to be a part of "the windfall". All you need is $87 for a share...

 

Disclaimer: I am an Exxon Shareholder.

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:

 

The companies are supposed to make profits. Alot of these companies are foreign based. Taxing them seems a little tough. Not too mention the fact that if you're taxing profits, that is likely to affect on those who are investing into those companies and stock holders. It just doesn't add up.