The Democrats want to raise taxes on oil companies
#21
12-31-2006, 06:21 PM
Re: The Democrats want to raise taxes on oil companies
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...11-19-03-54-44
Great, another one of the Democrat's wonderful plans to help Americans with already high energy prices. The oil companies will simply pass these taxes onto us, like they do in Europe, which will raise the prices of petroleum based products, and pretty much everything else, as plastic is made with oil and transportion of goods utilizes various forms of oil.
It would be one thing if the Democrats were going to burn the money they will get from these taxes (heck, it would offset the counterfitting program that the Democrats instituted under FDR, which inflates the dollar everytime someone declares bankruptcy), but it is another thing that they are going to spend it. Once the Democrats start spending money on something, they never stop; because of that, once they get the money from this, they will spend it, on a yearly basis, on something that we will not need, and when demand for oil naturally declines, as people switch to hybrids, hydrogen powered vehicles and electric vehicles, the Democrats will insist that the government cannot be run without the additional tax revenue, leading to higher taxes on us elsewhere and also leading all of us to buy into the Democrats' idea that the "rich" are responsible because they deserve higher taxes than we have and the "fact" that they pay such "low" taxes is the reason why we suffer such a burden.
Of course, because the "rich," which I quote as wealth is solely a matter of opinion, are the ones that start businesses which in turn create higher paying jobs as the businesses they start have to compete for labor, many higher paying jobs that people would have had they will not have, and the country will enter an economic decline like it did during the 1970s and we will all blame the "rich," which by now will be paupers themselves.
Who else wishes that the government would just leave us alone?
Great, another one of the Democrat's wonderful plans to help Americans with already high energy prices. The oil companies will simply pass these taxes onto us, like they do in Europe, which will raise the prices of petroleum based products, and pretty much everything else, as plastic is made with oil and transportion of goods utilizes various forms of oil.
It would be one thing if the Democrats were going to burn the money they will get from these taxes (heck, it would offset the counterfitting program that the Democrats instituted under FDR, which inflates the dollar everytime someone declares bankruptcy), but it is another thing that they are going to spend it. Once the Democrats start spending money on something, they never stop; because of that, once they get the money from this, they will spend it, on a yearly basis, on something that we will not need, and when demand for oil naturally declines, as people switch to hybrids, hydrogen powered vehicles and electric vehicles, the Democrats will insist that the government cannot be run without the additional tax revenue, leading to higher taxes on us elsewhere and also leading all of us to buy into the Democrats' idea that the "rich" are responsible because they deserve higher taxes than we have and the "fact" that they pay such "low" taxes is the reason why we suffer such a burden.
Of course, because the "rich," which I quote as wealth is solely a matter of opinion, are the ones that start businesses which in turn create higher paying jobs as the businesses they start have to compete for labor, many higher paying jobs that people would have had they will not have, and the country will enter an economic decline like it did during the 1970s and we will all blame the "rich," which by now will be paupers themselves.
Who else wishes that the government would just leave us alone?
The best way to get a junky off of drugs is to make it so inaccesible and so expensive but they have no choice to use less, quit, or die.
Americans constantly want the easy, quick way out of everything...has life become that much of a video game for everyone?
Last edited by Armand; 12-31-2006 at 06:25 PM.
#22
01-04-2007, 03:27 PM
Re: The Democrats want to raise taxes on oil companies
Perhaps you want to take the easy quick way out this time. It is very easy to have the government mandate things and ruin everything. It is much harder to get the government to leave us alone.
If you read my post, you would know that if they Democrats do that, the economy will suffer, people will suffer and those perceived as the "rich" will suffer in ways beyond simply their income. To allow such a thing to be done, is the easy quick way out. It is easy to break something; it is not so easy to fix it.
If you read my post, you would know that if they Democrats do that, the economy will suffer, people will suffer and those perceived as the "rich" will suffer in ways beyond simply their income. To allow such a thing to be done, is the easy quick way out. It is easy to break something; it is not so easy to fix it.
#23
01-04-2007, 04:58 PM
Re: The Democrats want to raise taxes on oil companies
Perhaps you want to take the easy quick way out this time. It is very easy to have the government mandate things and ruin everything. It is much harder to get the government to leave us alone.
If you read my post, you would know that if they Democrats do that, the economy will suffer, people will suffer and those perceived as the "rich" will suffer in ways beyond simply their income. To allow such a thing to be done, is the easy quick way out. It is easy to break something; it is not so easy to fix it.
If you read my post, you would know that if they Democrats do that, the economy will suffer, people will suffer and those perceived as the "rich" will suffer in ways beyond simply their income. To allow such a thing to be done, is the easy quick way out. It is easy to break something; it is not so easy to fix it.
And on the contrary....taxing people more will create hardships, put pressure on people to become more active about issues, take responsibilty for wasting resources, etc....far from the easy way out.
It is very clear that throughout history, people in this country, and elsewhere of course, do nothing to improve their lives until mandates force them to.
How many people do you know who will willingly, without any particular reason, give up their gas guzzling junk and drive a more efficient car?
The one and ONLY reason why I would NOT consider raising fuel costs or taxes on fuel is that the taxes we now pay do absolutely nothing for our infrastructure, our healthcare system, our schools, etc....nothing at all...except to pay back the huge deficit we have. That's the only thing it goes towards.
What raises taxes will do is **** enough people off to that they get off their collective behinds and do something in general about other things as well.
Otherwise everyone will be happy watching glaciers melt away, drive 15MPG BMW SUV's, and continue to fund perpetual wars for cheap fuel.
Last edited by Armand; 01-21-2007 at 12:04 AM.
#24
01-16-2007, 05:15 PM
Re: The Democrats want to raise taxes on oil companies
Great discussion.
I wanted to pass this important request regarding the upcoming vote on this countries direction on energy sustainability as well as national security.
>
> Each of us have made an important contribution on reducing oil dependency and greenhouse gases. There is so much more to do though and we have had so many lost opportunities.
>
> Please consider if you would like to share your opinion with your Representative. If you are in Mr. Petri's or Mr. Sensenbrenner's district please let them know what an important vote this is and let them know where you stand on this legislation.
>
> Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.
>
> Bradlee Fons
> The Milwaukee Hybrid Group
> milwaukeehybridgroup.com
>
>
> Hi Friends,
>
>
>
> With the swearing in of the 110th Congress, America has an opportunity to move in a new direction, starting by moving toward a cleaner, new energy future.
>
>
>
> One of the first votes of the new Congress will be to create a multi-billion dollar fund for new investment in clean energy by cutting subsidies to Big Oil. This new funding will expand the use of clean energy technologies like wind and solar power, while helping reduce our dependence on oil.
>
>
>
> The vote is scheduled for this Thursday, January 18. We expect the vote to be very close, and the support of Reps. Petri and Sensenbrenner is critical to win this important victory for clean energy. You can help by calling your representative today at 1-866-699-9243. Just tell the operator where you're from, and they will connect you.
>
>
>
> Here's a sample message you can leave:
>
> "Hello, my name is _______ and I live in _______. I'm calling to urge Representative _______ to vote to stop the taxpayer handouts to the oil industry and invest in clean, renewable energy."
>
>
>
> To report your call, click here, or paste this link into your web browser:
>
>
>
> http://pirg.org/alerts/route.asp?id=1122&id4=ES
>
>
>
> Then, ask your family and friends to help by forwarding this message to them.
>
>
>
> Background
>
>
>
> Oil Company Profits Continue to Skyrocket
>
>
>
> Big oil companies are swimming in a sea of record-breaking profits while American consumers and taxpayers pay the price. In 2005, the world's biggest oil companies reported a combined $111 billion in profits. In the first three quarters of 2006 they reported more than $94 billion.
>
>
>
> Some of the biggest oil company profits in 2005 were:
>
> * ExxonMobil: $36.1 billion
>
> * Royal Dutch Shell: $25.3 billion
>
> * BP: $22.3 billion
>
> * ConocoPhillips: $13.5 billion
>
> * Chevron Texaco $14.1 billion
>
>
>
> Federal Handouts Lavish Billions on Oil and Gas Companies
>
>
>
> Despite earning record profits, oil and gas companies continue to benefit from billions in handouts courtesy of American taxpayers. Between tax incentives, below-market fees for drilling on public lands, research and development subsidies and accounting gimmicks, these companies will receive more than $31.6 billion from the federal government over the next five years.
>
>
>
> Specifically, these handouts break down as follows:
>
> * Tax breaks: $16 billion
>
> * Research and development subsidies: $1.8 billion
>
> * Below-market fees for drilling on public lands: $9.5 billion
>
> * Accounting gimmicks: $4.3 billion
>
> * Total: $31.6 billion
>
>
>
> Some of most outrageous handouts to Big Oil allow companies drilling for oil and natural gas on public lands to pay below-market fees, or royalties, for the resources they extract. Oil companies are currently slated to shortchange taxpayers by $9.5 billion over the next five years.
>
>
>
> Another giveaway allows oil companies to write off the costs of oil drilling and refining. Together, these giveaways total more than $4 billion over the next 5 years.
>
>
>
> The week of January 15 Congress will vote on a bill to create a multi-billion dollar clean energy fund by cutting taxpayer handouts to the oil industry. You can help by calling your representative today at 1-866-699-9243. Just tell the operator where you're from, and they will connect you.
>
>
>
> Here's a sample message you can leave:
>
> "Hello, my name is ____ and I live in _____. I'm calling to urge Representative ____ to vote to stop the taxpayer handouts to the oil industry and invest in clean, renewable energy."
>
>
>
> To report your call, click here, or paste this link into your web browser:
>
>
>
> http://pirg.org/alerts/route.asp?id=1122&id4=ES
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Bruce Speight
>
> WISPIRG Field Director
>
> (608) 251-9501
>
> bspeight@wispirg.org
>
> www.wispirg.org
>
>
>
> Join WISPIRG's Email Alert Network - go to www.wispirg.org and enter your email under "To receive issue updates."
>
>
>
>
I wanted to pass this important request regarding the upcoming vote on this countries direction on energy sustainability as well as national security.
>
> Each of us have made an important contribution on reducing oil dependency and greenhouse gases. There is so much more to do though and we have had so many lost opportunities.
>
> Please consider if you would like to share your opinion with your Representative. If you are in Mr. Petri's or Mr. Sensenbrenner's district please let them know what an important vote this is and let them know where you stand on this legislation.
>
> Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.
>
> Bradlee Fons
> The Milwaukee Hybrid Group
> milwaukeehybridgroup.com
>
>
> Hi Friends,
>
>
>
> With the swearing in of the 110th Congress, America has an opportunity to move in a new direction, starting by moving toward a cleaner, new energy future.
>
>
>
> One of the first votes of the new Congress will be to create a multi-billion dollar fund for new investment in clean energy by cutting subsidies to Big Oil. This new funding will expand the use of clean energy technologies like wind and solar power, while helping reduce our dependence on oil.
>
>
>
> The vote is scheduled for this Thursday, January 18. We expect the vote to be very close, and the support of Reps. Petri and Sensenbrenner is critical to win this important victory for clean energy. You can help by calling your representative today at 1-866-699-9243. Just tell the operator where you're from, and they will connect you.
>
>
>
> Here's a sample message you can leave:
>
> "Hello, my name is _______ and I live in _______. I'm calling to urge Representative _______ to vote to stop the taxpayer handouts to the oil industry and invest in clean, renewable energy."
>
>
>
> To report your call, click here, or paste this link into your web browser:
>
>
>
> http://pirg.org/alerts/route.asp?id=1122&id4=ES
>
>
>
> Then, ask your family and friends to help by forwarding this message to them.
>
>
>
> Background
>
>
>
> Oil Company Profits Continue to Skyrocket
>
>
>
> Big oil companies are swimming in a sea of record-breaking profits while American consumers and taxpayers pay the price. In 2005, the world's biggest oil companies reported a combined $111 billion in profits. In the first three quarters of 2006 they reported more than $94 billion.
>
>
>
> Some of the biggest oil company profits in 2005 were:
>
> * ExxonMobil: $36.1 billion
>
> * Royal Dutch Shell: $25.3 billion
>
> * BP: $22.3 billion
>
> * ConocoPhillips: $13.5 billion
>
> * Chevron Texaco $14.1 billion
>
>
>
> Federal Handouts Lavish Billions on Oil and Gas Companies
>
>
>
> Despite earning record profits, oil and gas companies continue to benefit from billions in handouts courtesy of American taxpayers. Between tax incentives, below-market fees for drilling on public lands, research and development subsidies and accounting gimmicks, these companies will receive more than $31.6 billion from the federal government over the next five years.
>
>
>
> Specifically, these handouts break down as follows:
>
> * Tax breaks: $16 billion
>
> * Research and development subsidies: $1.8 billion
>
> * Below-market fees for drilling on public lands: $9.5 billion
>
> * Accounting gimmicks: $4.3 billion
>
> * Total: $31.6 billion
>
>
>
> Some of most outrageous handouts to Big Oil allow companies drilling for oil and natural gas on public lands to pay below-market fees, or royalties, for the resources they extract. Oil companies are currently slated to shortchange taxpayers by $9.5 billion over the next five years.
>
>
>
> Another giveaway allows oil companies to write off the costs of oil drilling and refining. Together, these giveaways total more than $4 billion over the next 5 years.
>
>
>
> The week of January 15 Congress will vote on a bill to create a multi-billion dollar clean energy fund by cutting taxpayer handouts to the oil industry. You can help by calling your representative today at 1-866-699-9243. Just tell the operator where you're from, and they will connect you.
>
>
>
> Here's a sample message you can leave:
>
> "Hello, my name is ____ and I live in _____. I'm calling to urge Representative ____ to vote to stop the taxpayer handouts to the oil industry and invest in clean, renewable energy."
>
>
>
> To report your call, click here, or paste this link into your web browser:
>
>
>
> http://pirg.org/alerts/route.asp?id=1122&id4=ES
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Bruce Speight
>
> WISPIRG Field Director
>
> (608) 251-9501
>
> bspeight@wispirg.org
>
> www.wispirg.org
>
>
>
> Join WISPIRG's Email Alert Network - go to www.wispirg.org and enter your email under "To receive issue updates."
>
>
>
>
#25
01-17-2007, 03:29 PM
Re: The Democrats want to raise taxes on oil companies
I am not necessarily a fan of higher gas taxes. But it would be good to cancel the tax BREAKS the BUSH administration bestowed on that industry. The Dems should instead create a Guzzler tax that would in turn pay for hybrid tax credits.
#26
01-18-2007, 11:56 AM
Re: The Democrats want to raise taxes on oil companies
I'm watching the debate in the House and we can see that the Democrats are:
I'm sorry for the Republicans who earnestly believe some of the nonsense they are claiming today.
As a partisan Democrat, I'm hoping they will use the same nonsense in their next campaign.
But at last, we're starting to see Congress headed, however imperfectly, in the right direction.
Bob Wilson
- restoring oil lease royalties - any private land owner gets royalties on their oil and gas production. The Democrats are just returning public land royalties to the same status as a private land owner and collecting them.
- ignoring undone Republican claims - that in their 6-12 years they paid lip service to but failed to product. There will be more energy legislation in the future but the theft of royalties stops now.
I'm sorry for the Republicans who earnestly believe some of the nonsense they are claiming today.
As a partisan Democrat, I'm hoping they will use the same nonsense in their next campaign.
But at last, we're starting to see Congress headed, however imperfectly, in the right direction.
Bob Wilson
#28
01-20-2007, 09:04 PM
Pretty Darn Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ppls Rep. of Boulder
Posts: 480
Re: The Democrats want to raise taxes on oil companies
Here's one assessment of the Democrats energy proposal.
http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7066
"The Democrats' somewhat dodgy anti-subsidy crusade, however, collapses into ashes with the proposed "Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve" tacked on to the bill. In short, all fiscal gains to the Treasury associated with the above will be handed back out again to corporations like GE, British Petroleum, and you-name-the-industrial-conglomerate engaged in energy efficiency and renewable energy businesses. But the same arguments against handouts to "Big Oil" can be as easily marshaled against handouts to Big or Little Fill-In-the-Blank. And with energy prices this high, there are ample incentives for investors to spend money on oil and gas production, renewable energy, energy conservation, or other energy exotica."
http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7066
"The Democrats' somewhat dodgy anti-subsidy crusade, however, collapses into ashes with the proposed "Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve" tacked on to the bill. In short, all fiscal gains to the Treasury associated with the above will be handed back out again to corporations like GE, British Petroleum, and you-name-the-industrial-conglomerate engaged in energy efficiency and renewable energy businesses. But the same arguments against handouts to "Big Oil" can be as easily marshaled against handouts to Big or Little Fill-In-the-Blank. And with energy prices this high, there are ample incentives for investors to spend money on oil and gas production, renewable energy, energy conservation, or other energy exotica."
#29
01-21-2007, 03:18 PM
Re: The Democrats want to raise taxes on oil companies
Here's one assessment of the Democrats energy proposal.
http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7066
. . .
http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7066
. . .
". . . all fiscal gains to the Treasury associated with the above will be handed back out again to corporations . . ."
The "all" presumes something not evident in the bill. Worse, Cato loves to use "will", which lacks the legal finality of "shall." Cato is notorious for shaving semantics to mislead. But, to each their own.
For a copy of the bill, check the online Congressional record. But this bill hasn't been passed by the Senate and it still has to face GW.
Bob Wilson
#30
01-21-2007, 09:59 PM
Pretty Darn Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ppls Rep. of Boulder
Posts: 480
Re: The Democrats want to raise taxes on oil companies
Here's the bill's wording, I'm no lawyer but I think in (a) it says all the money will go into the SEERR, for the listed reasons. I got confused reading (b), which could mean that not All of the money gets spent on (a).
The money can indeed go to existing or start up companies, and universities (universities are subsidized companies to me). Where else would this money go. Maybe public service announcements. Maybe incentives for solar panels primarily to people with lots of discretionary money already.
I, and I think Cato would rather see that money reduce the debt, not handed to companies that can and should (I won't use will) invest in their own future.
This is just a shift of subsidies from current recipients to new recipients and the overlap may be large.
Here's Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clintons thoughts on how to use the SEERR.
"The strategic energy fund would allow government and business to work together to help solve some of the toughest scientific challenges that we have to deal with when it comes to energy and climate...I propose that over the next five years we devote from the strategic energy fund $9 billion into this advanced research project agency for energy; we encourage creative, competitive projects; we think outside the box; we tell young inventors who maybe nobody's ever heard of before that there will be prizes for inventions that can help us move more quickly on the path to energy independence"
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/state....cfm?id=255982
Cato must have gotten the estimated 14 Billion over 10 years wrong too. Hillary wants to spend 9 billion in the first 5 years.
Who receives those "prizes" could be the next Washington scandal.
The money can indeed go to existing or start up companies, and universities (universities are subsidized companies to me). Where else would this money go. Maybe public service announcements. Maybe incentives for solar panels primarily to people with lots of discretionary money already.
I, and I think Cato would rather see that money reduce the debt, not handed to companies that can and should (I won't use will) invest in their own future.
This is just a shift of subsidies from current recipients to new recipients and the overlap may be large.
Here's Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clintons thoughts on how to use the SEERR.
"The strategic energy fund would allow government and business to work together to help solve some of the toughest scientific challenges that we have to deal with when it comes to energy and climate...I propose that over the next five years we devote from the strategic energy fund $9 billion into this advanced research project agency for energy; we encourage creative, competitive projects; we think outside the box; we tell young inventors who maybe nobody's ever heard of before that there will be prizes for inventions that can help us move more quickly on the path to energy independence"
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/state....cfm?id=255982
Cato must have gotten the estimated 14 Billion over 10 years wrong too. Hillary wants to spend 9 billion in the first 5 years.
Who receives those "prizes" could be the next Washington scandal.
Originally Posted by HR 6 CLEAN energy act
SEC. 301. STRATEGIC ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLES RESERVE
(a) In General- For budgetary purposes, the additional Federal receipts by reason of the enactment of this Act shall be held in a separate account to be known as the `Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve'. The Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve shall be available to offset the cost of subsequent legislation--
(a) In General- For budgetary purposes, the additional Federal receipts by reason of the enactment of this Act shall be held in a separate account to be known as the `Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve'. The Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve shall be available to offset the cost of subsequent legislation--
-
- (1) to accelerate the use of clean domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels;
-
- (2) to promote the utilization of energy-efficient products and practices and conservation; and
-
- (3) to increase research, development, and deployment of clean renewable energy and efficiency technologies.
- (b) Procedure for Adjustments-
-
- (1) BUDGET COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN- After the reporting of a bill or joint resolution, or the offering of an amendment thereto or the submission of a conference report thereon, providing funding for the purposes set forth in subsection (a) in excess of the amounts provided for those purposes for fiscal year 2007, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the applicable House of Congress shall make the adjustments set forth in paragraph (2) for the amount of new budget authority and outlays in that measure and the outlays flowing from that budget authority.
-
- (2) MATTERS TO BE ADJUSTED- The adjustments referred to in paragraph (1) are to be made to--
-
-
- (A) the discretionary spending limits, if any, set forth in the appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget;
-
-
-
- (B) the allocations made pursuant to the appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and
-
-
-
- (C) the budget aggregates contained in the appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget as required by section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
-
-
- (3) AMOUNTS OF ADJUSTMENTS- The adjustments referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not exceed the receipts estimated by the Congressional Budget Office that are attributable to this Act for the fiscal year in which the adjustments are made.
