quote: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Every American taxpayer would get a $100 rebate check to offset the pain of higher pump prices for gasoline, under an amendment Senate Republicans hope to bring to a vote Thursday.
However, the GOP energy package may face tough sledding because it also includes a controversial proposal to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil exploration, which most Democrats and some moderate Republicans oppose.
Democrats are also expected to offer their own competing proposal, as members of both parties jockey for political position on the gas price issue.
The energy package, sponsored by Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa, Ted Stevens of Alaska, Pete Domenici of New Mexico and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, will be offered as an amendment to an emergency spending measure now before the Senate funding the Iraq war and hurricane relief, according to a senior GOP leadership aide.
Under Senate rules, either the GOP amendment or the Democratic alternative would probably need 60 votes to pass, which is considered unlikely. However, the amendments would give senators a change to cast votes on measures designed to help constituents being hit by high gas prices.
As outlined by the senior GOP leadership aide, the energy package would give taxpayers a $100 rebate, repeal tax incentives for oil companies and allow the Federal Trade Commission to prosecute retailers unlawfully inflating the price of gasoline.
The measure would also give the Transportation Department authority to issue fuel efficiency standards for passenger vehicles, expand tax incentives for the use of hybrid vehicles and push for more research into alternative fuels and expansion of existing oil refineries.
The GOP senators are also calling on the Bush administration to suspend deposits into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for six months to increase the nation's oil supply. President Bush announced Tuesday that he would halt new deposits into the reserve until after the summer driving season. (Full story)
On the other side of the aisle, Democrats on Wednesday called for a new energy bill and federal legislation to punish price gougers.
"There's no reason why we can't put forth a real energy policy that addresses the needs of this nation," said Rep. Bart Stupak, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, "from gouging to market manipulation to biofuels. We can do it." (Full story)
And leaders of the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday asked the Internal Revenue Service to let them examine the tax returns of the nation's 15 largest oil and gas companies, as part of a "comprehensive review" of oil industry profits.
"I want to make sure the oil companies aren't taking a speed pass by the tax man," said Grassley, the committee's chairman, in a written statement.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Getting $100 dollars for gas money would be great, but after two or three fill-ups it would be gone and we'd be in the same situation. To me thats in the "band-aid on a broken bone" category, as well as being financially irresponsible, as surely that money is needed for something else right now.
quote:it also includes a controversial proposal to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil exploration
This is completely unacceptable to me; because gas prices are high someone is proposing destroying the natural habitat of our earthly co-inhabitants. What next? When lumber prices get too high we open up Redwood Forest for industry? I swear, give 'em a foot and they'll take a mile.
quote:The measure would also give the Transportation Department authority to issue fuel efficiency standards for passenger vehicles, expand tax incentives for the use of hybrid vehicles and push for more research into alternative fuels and expansion of existing oil refineries.
And this is the good idea that all the bad ideas are trying to hide behind. IMO, this is what we need to be pushing, not destroying what natural earth we have left or handing out cash like we have more than enough of it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Bah. I'm skeptical. $100 isn't really going to do anything to help offset the price of gas.
Additionally-- I'd rather that $10,000,000,000 go toward a solution to oil dependency.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
That money could take $10,000 off the price of 1 million hybrid cars.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
This is such an incredibly stupid idea...it just makes me sick.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
This really reminds me of that $340 tax "refund" that Bush used to buy so many votes back in the day. Boy, didn't that make us all so much better off?
I'm with Scott, take the money and put it into getting us off of oil. And follow Brazil's example and mandate immediately that all cars sold in America be flex fuel vehicles.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I third that. And I'm with vonk about Alaskan 'exploration' (by which they mean 'drilling') being totally unacceptable. We need a viable alternative energy source or a whole lot of people to start walking to work.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Who is going to pay for this $100 that each taxpayer gets? My guess is that it will be added to the debt we tax payers will eventually have to pay back (plus interest). So, that means they are giving us $100 now for gas but also taking $100 (plus interest) later. I don't see how this helps me...
...unless they plan on cutting $10,000,000,000 from some budget somewhere to pay for my $100 check, so it's not just my future self paying my present self a little extra for gas. (If I want to do that, I can do it without the government's help, by spending $100 more and saving $100 less.)
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Can you say "Band Aid Solution"?
In one hundred or two hundred years we are going to be looking back on this period and this decision (or proposal) as mad, if we aren't already. We're merely putting off the inevitable. Of course this money should go into alternative forms of transport and power where it will do some good and move us all forward into a more efficient, sustainable and cleaner era.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
One suggestion I have heard is to stop buying from the largest company, Exxon/Mobile. That way they will have to lower their prices to stay competitive.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I got a couple of chain letters about that kmbboots. I'm not sure how effective that would be. Most of the gas guzzlers would never get the message and/or wouldn't support/join the blackball. I've heard many other reasons why that wouldn't work, but I can't remember them right now.
But I'll tell you what, I won't buy any ExxonMobil gas for, oh, say, the next year. (I don't have a car)
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
$100 to every tax-paying family? That's absurd. It will only go right back to the oil companies, giving them no incentive to lower prices. Furthermore, I'm content with high-ish gas prices--maybe they'll encourage alternative energy development.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't have a car either. Hey! Do I still get the $100?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I hope so. I want my hunned dolla'. And I promise I'll buy gas with it... or petroleum jelly at least. Woah, dirty.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Petroleum jelly is not always the best choice for "dirty" uses...
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Petroleum jelly is not always the best choice for "dirty" uses...
I had a suitably graphic response all typed up, but I think I'm just going to let this one go...
Posted by Nell Gwyn (Member # 8291) on :
quote:One suggestion I have heard is to stop buying from the largest company, Exxon/Mobile. That way they will have to lower their prices to stay competitive.
I've gotten those chain letters too, but after reading Snope's explanation, that idea doesn't sound very effective. Of course, I rarely buy from Exxon/Mobil anyway because they tend to be the most expensive company in this area.
And I agree; this $100 plan sounds completely stupid. But I bet a lot of people in this country will jump for it all the same.
Edited to add clarifying quote.
[ April 27, 2006, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: Nell Gwyn ]
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
People who suggest rebates as criminally stupid as this should never be elected to our Congress. I'm embarassed that someone thought this was a good use of that much money.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't have a car either. Hey! Do I still get the $100?
Actually you do, and I never thought of that. They say every tax payer...
Even 14 year olds working part time?
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: This is completely unacceptable to me; because gas prices are high someone is proposing destroying the natural habitat of our earthly co-inhabitants. What next? When lumber prices get too high we open up Redwood Forest for industry? I swear, give 'em a foot and they'll take a mile.
You are completely correct about the $100 rebate idea, and completely wrong about ANWR.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It makes me LIVID.
Didn't de Toqueville observe that one of the perils of representative democracy lay in the possibility that the elected representatives would start stooping to directly bribing their constitutents through legislation?
This is a BLATANT example of that: "we'll make your grandchildren give you $100 if you let us drill in the Wildlife Refuge."
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
They don't pay taxes. [edit: to the statement "Even 14 year olds working part-time?"]
And I assume that 'taxpayers' refers to income tax.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't have a car either. Hey! Do I still get the $100?
Actually you do, and I never thought of that. They say every tax payer...
Even 14 year olds working part time?
Cool! I'll use it to buy bread and circuses! Wheeeeee!
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: You are completely correct about the $100 rebate idea, and completely wrong about ANWR.
Awe, that's sweet.
Were you gonna back that up with anything?
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
I think the government has way too much of my money. But this is a stupid way to get some of it back.
Cut spending. *Then* lower taxes. (And I don't mean just the federal income tax that everyone focuses on that takes attention away from all of the OTHER taxes we don't even blink at.)
But don't just send a check to everyone.
And if we do drill in the wildlife refuge, how does that really help? When demand exceeds *that* supply, what do we do then? Whatever we'll do then, why don't we do it now and not drill in the reserve in the first place?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:One suggestion I have heard is to stop buying from the largest company, Exxon/Mobile. That way they will have to lower their prices to stay competitive.
But the demand for gas from other companies will go up, giving them incentive to raise prices even further. That means that those boycotting Exxon/Mobile will pay even higher prices for gas from other companies while those not boycotting Exxon/Mobile will reap the benefits of lower Exxon/Mobile prices.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Given the obscene amount of money paid to Exxon's CEO, it might be fun to do just for the heck of it.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Does anyone here even know how much gas companies are making off of a gallon of gas? Now compare that to what the federal government makes, and now what your state makes.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: One suggestion I have heard is to stop buying from the largest company, Exxon/Mobile. That way they will have to lower their prices to stay competitive.
I don't buy from Imperial Oil, which is owned by ExxonMobil, unless I can't avoid doing so. Not because I want them to lower their prices, but because they make the dirtiest gasoline in Canada.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk:
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: You are completely correct about the $100 rebate idea, and completely wrong about ANWR.
Awe, that's sweet.
Were you gonna back that up with anything?
As much as your 'destroying natural habitat' comment was.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm not a citizen; I do pay taxes and own a car, though. Do I get a bribe?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
The ANWR thing is just dumb. Even if they instantly had more crude tomorrow, there's no way to *refine* it any faster. As I understand it, the demand for domestic oil isn't any higher than it has ever been, largely because they can't refine any more than is already being done so now. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that.
And the rebate thing is dumb too.
Actually, the sheer amount of whining about rising gas prices in relation to ExxonMobil's profits also seems dumb to me. As I understand it, their profit margins haven't increased. Just the gross dollar profits, which indicates to me an increase in demand, which they are attempting to meet. As I understand it, China's demand for oil has increased significantly, which results in less available and rising prices. That's what happened to the steel market, so this makes sense to me. And happened to the paper industry in the early 90's when paper prices skyrocketed almost overnight. If demand increases, prices go up. It's nearly summer, so demand is going to go up a lot...hence rising prices. And it's not like we're paying Europe's prices (or for that matter, Canada's)....I just shudder to think how much those countries must be laughing at us for being whiners.
On top of all this, I would think that rising gas prices would make environmentalists ecstatic -- if it costs too much to drive, people will think of other alternatives. Like mass transit. Or bicycles. Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
How about the federal government just lower the 49 cents tax per gallon off of my gas, and the Washington state government lower their 65 cents tax off of my gas?
My gas would be around $1.80/gallon without taxes (not that I'm proposing NO gas tax, just significantly less).
It's ridiculous that my gas is being taxed at about 40%. Keep your hundred bucks and just stop taking so much off the top.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
Which also makes me wonder how motivated the government is to really lower gas prices, since the higher the price goes, the more tax they get.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Marlozhan, I'd *really* like to see how much tax money is brought in each quarter from gas and see how it ranks against Exxon Mobil's profits.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
It'll be a cold day in you-know-where when the government releases THEIR gas tax income to the public.
And I wish I could remember the source and the exact info, but if the gas company CEOs gave up their personal profits, it would be pennies off of the total gas price. People do not even begin to fathom how much oil we use, and their profits are nothing when divided across the whole US.
Posted by Nell Gwyn (Member # 8291) on :
I'm curious about how the taxes figure into gas prices too.
I googled and came up with this pdf link from this site, which seems to have some pretty good recent info on it, but my understanding of taxes in general is exceptionally dim, so I'd love further clarification if anyone can offer it.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
To be fair, gas taxes are supposed to go to something useful, like roads and transit. Oil company profits aren't quite so noble. However, it's always an alarm bell to me when the government makes more money on something than the company that produces it.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote:How about the federal government just lower the 49 cents tax per gallon off of my gas, and the Washington state government lower their 65 cents tax off of my gas?
My gas would be around $1.80/gallon without taxes (not that I'm proposing NO gas tax, just significantly less).
It's ridiculous that my gas is being taxed at about 40%. Keep your hundred bucks and just stop taking so much off the top.
According to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), our roads get graded as a D. You can read about it here. The money being spent on roads currently isn't even enough to maintain what we have adequately. I don't think doing away with the tax on gas is a very good idea since that's what mainly pays for those roads. Actually, it's a really bad idea. Dropping the tax, even for a short while for a tax holiday, will only make people that much madder when the tax goes back into effect.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Zan, how much of that tax money is 'wasted' on environmental impact studies? Or other studies that pretty much state the obvious? (I'm not, btw, saying that environmental impact studies always state the obvious, just that some of them do and they are always expensive without actually building anything.)
I don't know how it is in Florida, but here, whenever a new road is going to be built or expanded, the green extremists go nuts. We desperately need to widen a bridge not far from my home but it isn't even on the agenda because the proposed cost is well over $50MILLION. Million. Fifty of them. That seems insane for a bridge that spans about 100 yards. And then the county pushed for spending another $700K on a study to find out why a particular stretch of highway is so deadly (lots of fatal accidents, most of which are head on collisions) when it takes nothing but casual observation to figure out. It's a two lane highway with no division that has had a huge increase in traffic as people from Seattle spread out to find affordable housing. I mean, duh...this takes $700K to figure out? Once that study comes back stating the obvious, then we'll have to spend at least another million on an environmental impact report stating that widening and dividing this stretch of highway will adversely impact wild salmon runs, which will then cause the project to be scrapped because they're an endangered species. I can't wait to see how much of my gas tax dollars will go to not build roads. Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I don't think we have too much problem with environmental impact studies for roads. Most of what I see is for roads which will be widened and that usually isn't too big a problem. In areas where new major roads are needed, such as finishing up the last segment of a bypass loop around Orlando, it gets more sticky.
Even then, the major holdup seems to be figuring out the best way to do it, not whether it will be done or not. Our big problem is that when roads get built, developers follow. Large subdivisions seems to screw up nature more than roads.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Write a letter to your congressperson and representative telling them that you don't agree with this, and want to see oil prices and dependency lowered instead of a worthless rebate.
Writing here is fine and good, but if you don't speak up to your elected officials, it's just so much complaining.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:As much as your 'destroying natural habitat' comment was.
quote:Top 10 Reasons Not To Drill in the ANWR 10. Predictions about the environmental effects on Prudhoe Bay oil development were greatly underestimated. Fish and wildlife habitat losses resulting from construction and operation of the pipeline system were much greater than the predictions had estimated. 9. The waste products of the oil development would be hundreds of open pits containing millions of gallons of oil and industry waste which would definitely have an environmental impact on habitat and wildlife. 8. The environmental impact of oil development in the Coastal Plain will extend far beyond the arctic tundra. 7. The oil companies do not always comply with environmental protection laws and regulations. 6. The oil will only last for a limited number of years but the effect on the Coastal Plain environment will be observable for many years after the drilling has stopped. 5. Construction and operation for the oil development would destroy thousands of acres of local wildlife and habitat. 4. ANWR contains coastal lagoons, barrier islands, arctic tundra, foothills, mountains, and boreal forests which have been undisturbed. 3. There are more than 160 bird species, 36 kinds of land mammals, 9 marine mammal species, and 36 types of fish in the ANWR. 2. ANWR is a symbol for everyone on this planet of the link between wilderness and wildlife and the need for both, now and in the future. 1. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is among the most complete and undisturbed ecosystems on earth.
There are very many pros and cons to be found in the vast land of the internet, but I find that the pros are all revenue based and the cons are all environmentaly based. I tend to lend more credence to environmental issues over any companies revenue.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This is a terrible, terrible idea. Why don't they just hand the money over to the oil companies directly and cut out the middle men (us)?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:Fish and wildlife habitat losses resulting from construction and operation of the pipeline system were much greater than the predictions had estimated.
This is very interesting, since as I understand it, several species of animals have actually done very, very well as a direct result of the pipeline. It puts off heat, which has allowed caribou herds to grow far in excess of what was expected.
Further, as far as the mistakes made at Prudhoe Bay are concerned, there were many made, but they were also learned from. Having done this before in an equally hostile environment, any projects in ANWR would be much easier to predict as far as environmental impact is concerned.
Doesn't #3 strike you as a ridiculously low number for a swath of the planet that is so friggin' large? I'm not saying they're not important, but they act like that's a lot. It's not, relative to the vastness that is ANWR.
And to make 10 they had to be repetitive...#1 and #4 are essentially the same thing.
All of this said, I'm not for drilling in ANWR at this time. I think the fact that it's been brought up right now as a supposed 'way to lower gas prices' is as vacuous an argument as that top 10 list.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
More tax money goes into road building and road maintenance than is collected in gasoline&diesel taxes, Marlozhan. And even in California, the total amount of taxes paid on gasoline is less than 18% of the total cost. You are almost certainly paying less.
BTW: jenniwren, that link will also give you a fairly decent idea of what the oil companies are raking in. Independently-owned gas stations are probably having their profits hammered into the ground.
[ April 27, 2006, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"We desperately need to widen a bridge not far from my home."
You desperately need to reduce the number of vehicles carrying only the driver. What you want is for the government to make it even easier for folks to continue being wasteful.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: You desperately need to reduce the number of vehicles carrying only the driver. What you want is for the government to make it even easier for folks to continue being wasteful.
You're making a very generalized and over-reaching assumption about why she feels a need to have the bridge widened, without knowing the details of this situation. Try rephrasing this into a question and make your point on the answer instead going into attack mode with no information.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
So aspectre, are you celebrating the high gas prices? You should be -- pinched wallets are what make people change their ways.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The total amount of fuel that can be produced by drilling in the ArcticNationalWildlifeReserve -- using the oil reserve estimates made by the neo"conservative"AmericanPetroleumInstitute* -- will be burned in less than 10years IF world demand ceases to increase. That estimated time of depletion was made before China became a major importer of crude oil and petroleum-based products. China is currently the world's second largest importer, following only the US.
* So extremist in their optimistic projections that even the major petroleum companies have distanced themselves from the API.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
FriendsofAnimals.org gave these numbers:
quote:Moreover, drilling will not significantly lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The oil of the Arctic Refuge would not be available for another 10 years, and would provide only a 6-month supply.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
*blink*
I don't think anyone here is arguing that we should drill in ANWR. Ted Stevens is, but he's pretty well known for his agenda. And he's not on Hatrack.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I thought that Irregardless was with this
quote:You are completely correct about the $100 rebate idea, and completely wrong about ANWR
but I suppose he was just arguing my diction.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
According to this article Exxon's profits rose 7% from a year ago, their revenues 8.45%. (The income per share rose 12%, but there are more outstanding shares, so we look at the total profit numbers.)
Of the $6.93B in new revenues, $0.55B, or 7.93%, of that was profit.
If they were gouging, a much higher percentage of the new revenue would be profit.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"...are you celebrating the high gas prices?...pinched wallets are what make people change their ways."
Nope, the people who are wasting the most gasoline, who are the most responsible for driving up gasoline/etc* prices don't particularly care about the cost of gas. The price rise ain't all that much when compared to the opportunity**cost of $500 per month (for low end buyers) just for purchasing their gas hog. And that isn't including the opportunity costs for actually driving the vehicle as opposed to driving a car with better fuel economy.
People with pinched wallets weren't driving much even before prices started to rise. People who are currently having their wallets pinched were probably putting on less miles in vehicles using less gasoline per passenger mile than the average driver. Those are the folks who will cease driving. Those are the folks who will end up driving less. Those are the people who will suffer: when crude oil prices go up, so do other energy costs such as those for heating and electicity.
* Fertilizers, plastics, etc prices are directly tied to crude oil prices. The price of food, consumer goods, etc, and natural gas and other energy are indirectly tied to the cost of crude oil.
** Profits lost when money is spent instead of invested.
[ April 27, 2006, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"The oil of the Arctic Refuge...would provide only a 6-month supply."
I've seen similar figures, vonk. I think that estimate is made under the assumption that the US quits importing crude oil and uses only the ANWR reserves as replacement
"Exxon's profits...7.93%, of that was profit...If they were gouging, a much higher percentage of the new revenue would be profit."
Exxon made record profits in the year previous to that, too. And distributed record dividends Profit is after costs: such as dividends to stock holders, paying their CEO $53million for last year, giving him a $400million retirement package this year, etc I doubt that other Exxon board members and executives are displeased with their increased pay&perks and bonuses either. As well as bonuses and all kinds of perk purchases such as new office furniture, new computers, football/basketball/baseball/theater/plane tickets, reward lunches and dinners, vacation hotel, etc, for their staff.
[ April 27, 2006, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Profit is after costs: such as dividends to stock holders,
Profits are not reduced by dividends. Dividends affect the balance sheet and the cash flow statement, not the income statement. It's likely that most of the $400 million retirement package isn't being applied as an expense in this quarter.
As for the rest, you would need to present evidence that these expenses have changed as a proportion of revenue for those expenses to support a charge of gouging.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Yeah, I forgot that the dividend exclusion hasn't taken effect (I wasn't paying enough attention: was it passed?)
Who says that they are gouging? They are charging what the market will bear. I am merely pointing out that Exxon is very happy with the extreme rises in crude oil prices: 10% of $10million is a more pleasing profit than 10% of $3million, n'est-ce pas?
Quite a bit of that profit increase is necessary to be able to buy the same amount of crude oil. When 4barrels of crude costs $300, you need to make 10% profit if the rising market is gonna charge you $330 for your next purchase of 4barrels, just to stay even in your purchasing power within the crude oil market. If you didn't make that amount of profit, you only have enough money to buy 3.6barrels the next time. And if the market keeps rising and you keep refusing to make a profit on your purchase, eventually you won't have enough money to buy any amount of oil. You won't be in the oil business any more.*
I just don't like the crocodile tears being shed by oil industry executives laughing all the way to bank. I dislike watching the oil industry pat itself on the back with extraordinary-performance bonuses when there was no extraordinary service being provided by those executives. Cheetah the chimp could have been the CEO, and the accountants still would have provided the same profit increase on the rise in crude oil prices. I most especially dislike folks trying to obfuscate what is really going on in fear that the cops'll rein in the party.
* Which is one of the reasons why local owners of independent gasoline stations are being hammered: they didn't forsee the rapidity of the price rise with sufficient clarity and failed to charge enough for their gasoline to pay for their gas stations' next tanker-delivery and continue their old ~$0.05 per gallon profit margin. And that ~$0.05 per gallon profit on gasoline wasn't free&clear. It was profit before mortgage/rental payments, equipment loan payments, employee wages, taxes, etc. Their percentage of profit in relationship to the cost of a gallon of gasoline has fallen even more dramaticly.
[ April 27, 2006, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Woohoo! I can buy two-and-a-half tanks of gas with my check. I'll be in the clear until June!
If I only drive to work and home and go to the store only once a week.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
100$ for everyone seems to be a really great idea. Seriously. Bush is a genius.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah, and I think the government should just pay off our national debt by printing more money. I mean, they own the mint. I don't understand why those bozos in congress haven't figured this out yet.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, I suppose with inflation, this is roughly equivalent to a chicken in every pot. Particularly if thermal depolymerization becomes practical.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Oh, and seeing as how my state's junior senator is in on this, I'll quote myself from when he wanted to make it illegal for the National Weather Service to provide weather forecasts to the public:
quote:It's a Speed thing, like the movie. Santorum's got a bomb inextricabily wired into him and if he doesn't embarass himself and his state at least once every 90 days, it'll explode.
Election day is coming, though.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: *blink* I don't think anyone here is arguing that we should drill in ANWR.
I am. I'm pro-drilling pretty much everywhere. No, it will not affect gas prices today, or even next year, but we will still need petroleum 10 years from now.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
10 years from now we should already have this problem solved. That's my only problem with drilling in ANWR, not the environmental concerns.
It gives everyone another chance to pawn this problem off on the next guy, or the next generation, or the next whatever. We should figure this out now, this year, this month if possible. ANWR is a short term solution, not a long term one. Even at 20,000 barrels a day of production, it isn't going to make anything more than a tiny dent in consumption, ESPECIALLY if you consider that in the 10 years from now until production starts, our rate of consumption will have risen beyond what ANWR will produce every day.
Basically, even if we do drill, and get what we expect, it won't even bring us down to 2006 levels of consumption. It does almost nothing to solve the problem, maybe it's even worse than that, because it makes everyone THINK we're solving the problem, whilst the real problem goes unsolved as Republicans pat themselves on the back for a job UNDONE.
Solve the damned problem, long term, forever, then drill to your heart's content.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, if world temperatures go much higher than they are right now, and the permafrost in Alaska melts, you won't even be able to get the oil out of Alaska anyway, the Alaskan pipeline won't work. So good luck with that!
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Irregardless, I don't have a problem with drilling in ANWR, done responsibly, but see no need to open it now, nor do I think we should. Since we seem constitutionally incapable of saving money, ANWR strikes me as our country's savings account. We shouldn't touch it.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: Irregardless, I don't have a problem with drilling in ANWR, done responsibly, but see no need to open it now, nor do I think we should. Since we seem constitutionally incapable of saving money, ANWR strikes me as our country's savings account. We shouldn't touch it.
Would you want your savings account tied up such that you can't access it until ten years after you decide you need it?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:It's a Speed thing, like the movie. Santorum's got a bomb inextricabily wired into him and if he doesn't embarass himself and his state at least once every 90 days, it'll explode
It took me a second to figure this out. I was reading santorum with the Savage Love defenition. I was thinking, "I know it's gross, but I still don't get it." Then I realized you meant the person. Hmm...
If this amendment passes, it's proponents are gonna end up with santorum on their hands.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:Would you want your savings account tied up such that you can't access it until ten years after you decide you need it?
Yeah, actually. If you have an asset that is worth a great deal of money, it is possible to capitalize on its value without actually selling it. Borrowing against its value, for one. Which I don't recommend, of course, but it could be done. And then there is just outright sale. We could always sell Alaska if it got that tight. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm sure the Russians would gladly take it back. Of course, they'd try and buy it with vodka, but given the President's history with alcohol, he just might take the deal.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: They don't pay taxes. [edit: to the statement "Even 14 year olds working part-time?"]
And I assume that 'taxpayers' refers to income tax.
Someone may have already pointed this out. But anyone who earns more zero income must file an income tax returen even if they are 14 years old and only work part time. Anyone who earns more than a very base level income, must pay income tax. A 14 year old who who is counted as a dependent on his parents income tax return, can not claim him/herself as a dependent on his/her income tax return and so usually must pay some taxes if he/she earns more than about $900.
My tax software indicates that a 14 year old who earned $1000, would owe $21 in income taxes. Theoretically, such an individual would then receive the $100 tax rebate.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I am sorry to say that my Senator--Mr. Talent (wrongly named as any person I can think of) is also a sponsor of this public bribe. I am sending him a letter attacking his economic conservative credentials by sponsoring this.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
The only thing that amazes me more than how consistently this party underestimates the American people is how often the American people prove them right.
I don't pretend the Democrats wouldn't do similarly if they weren't too pathetic to get away with it, but I'm not sure I'm still capable of outrage with the Republican party. Do I have any expectations left for them to fail?
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Now the whole thing about increasing the tax that oil companies pay. Ummm, wouldn't that make things worse? You know they will just pass the expense on to the consumer by raising prices.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Actually, it looks like making the oil companies pay for it is the only part they're backing away from.
quote: In a statement, Frist said he will still push the rebate, but abandoned the accounting change and said the Senate Finance Committee planned a hearing on the issue in the near future.
Frist gave no indication how the rebate, estimated to cost about $10 billion, will be paid for, although he said he still planned to "find a way to bring our proposals to the Senate floor for a vote."
Call me cynical, but this really seems like something the GOP wants to push to a vote so they can say "See how we tried to give you a tax rebate but the Democrats voted against it?" in Novemeber. Never mind that the rebate doesn't solve the problem, as many have already said.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Now the whole thing about increasing the tax that oil companies pay. Ummm, wouldn't that make things worse? You know they will just pass the expense on to the consumer by raising prices.
Yes, gas companies would simply raise prices to make the consumers pay for the money being given back to them. It would just mean that taxpayers who don't drive will get $100 for nothing while taxpayers who DO drive would pay not only their own $100 back at the pump but also the $100 being given to those who don't drive. It distributes wealth from drivers to nondrivers.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Just curious, what are the mechanics of putting up a petition to have Bill Frist taken out on the Capital steps and beaten with a copy of The Wealth of Nations?
(Yes, I know it's actually the people out there who don't understand economics and the Senators are just playing to these people's ignorance and stupidity, but still.)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)