Barack Obama is the Antichrist

[SlayerDragon]

I disagree with you up to a point. It's true that both parties have played a part in getting us to where we are today. However, I don't think it does us much good to dwell in the past.

However, I think you can lay the blame almost completely on the shoulders of Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi for our current standoff. Nobody is arguing against alternative fuels. We would all love to have battery powered cars. Republicans are more than willing to pass legislation that would help encourage the search for alternative fuels, and it wouldn't require forcing oil companies to pay for it.

The only thing standing in the way is the two Democratic leaders in Congress. We have the votes to pass legislation. It would include provisions to allow us to tap into new sources of oil, as well as bolster alternative energy means, and reduce consumption. We even have the support of both presidential candidates. A bill could be constructed that almost everyone could live with. Yet, the speakers won't even allow the issue to come up for debate!

"I agree but it would totally kill me not to rail on Democrats right now."

There are several things that Obama won't tell you when he intends to increase taxes for oil companies.

1) For all the profits that oil companies have reaped, the government has made over twice the amount in profit from oil related taxation.

2) Increasing taxes on oil companies will undoubtedly have a negative effect on the U.S. economy and the people of the U.S. as a whole.

For once I agree with you.

 

[Poker]

How can you justify arbitrarily taxing a (publicly held, mind you) corporation for making money in a fair and lawful manner? ... Where's the proof that oil companies are artificially inflating prices?

The prices are artificially inflated not by the oil companies themselves, but by giant financial firms, hedge fund managers, and the like who deal in short-term oil futures. This type of speculative investment has taken advantage of special regulatory exemptions, and one in particular that enables unfettered electronic trading of energy futures to international markets, to send prices soaring by $120 per barrel since 2002, far beyond what could be caused by real supply and demand issues alone.

Closing this loophole is certainly another measure that should be taken by lawmakers, and it should be a priority of theirs that's equal to or even greater than funding or incentivizing clean tech through additional taxes on the corporations that have profited massively as a result of this bubble market.

People get all bent out of shape when they start listening to large numbers being thrown around, without even realizing that the cost of business is equally high. Sure, Exxon made 45 billion after taxes over the last four years, but they also paid in excess of 64 billion in taxes. Along with unprecedented profits come unprecedented taxes.

Why do you think they had unprecedented profits? With a 10% margin, it sure wasn't because they artificially inflated prices.

It's a fair point that the margin is not huge; however, companies are also willing to spend more on "cost of business" in direct correlation with how much they can assure shareholders that they'll make in return. In 2007 ExxonMobil netted $40 billion on $400 billion in revenue; is it really in keeping with the country's overall energy goals when a company like that is even able to dump $360 billion into scouring evermore remote areas of the earth, constructing billion dollar city-blocks poking out of the ocean, and other operating costs (and lest we forget, executive salaries and bonuses are included in with "operating costs")?

What we have here are polticians trying to place their own failings at the feet of someone else.

To some extent that is certainly correct; there should never have been an "Enron loophole" in the first place, or at least it should have been recognized as a problem and dealt with several years ago (and I'll leave it to anyone interested to identify which specific politicians are most responsible for these failings—Hint: Reid and Pelosi were not yet in power at the time). Having said that, however, I don't think it's wrong to rein in some of the profits of entities who have had tens of billions of dollars suddenly materialize in front of them as a result, or at least to influence their recommitment to the non-petroleum sectors of their business. Remember, that S. 3044 bill allowed companies to circumvent the "windfall profits" tax by voluntarily investing the otherwise taxable money into their own efforts in clean technology. Forcing more money to be invested into clean technology is the entire goal of raising the oil companies' taxes; if it causes them to fund that themselves, then all the better.

I'm all for corporate growth in general, as long as it's achieved in a fair and transparent manner, and does not impede on the greater good of the nation as a whole. But when a tiny sliver of richly funded individuals who are completely uninvolved in the production-consumption process are allowed to inflate the market this severely, especially in a market that is so intertwined with nearly every facet of our lives—not the least of which is our own national security—there is a bigger picture to consider, and extra measures do need to be taken.

 

[SlayerDragon]

is dat sum socialism

 

[hal]

Yeah, well I hate to break it to you, but speculation is a part of commodity trading. If there's been a lapse in oversight, then it certainly should be corrected.

You seem to be okay with a degree of socialism, Poker, and we'll just have to agree to disagree on that front. I personally can't stomach the thought of "punishing" corporations for making too much money. What about all of the retirement and mutual funds that have benefited from oil company profits? The government's job is not to make sure that outcomes are equal, just that the playing field is level and that competition takes place. Their attempts at social engineering always seem to backfire and fail miserably.

Why is it the responsibility of oil companies to invest money in alternate energy? Why not the automobile industry? Why not candle makers? Construction companies? They all benefit from petroleum.

I certainly don't mind allocating a portion of my taxes to go towards energy evolvement. Perhaps the legislators should have done that instead of filling every bill with earmarks.

 

[Soggy_Popcorn]

Yeah, well I hate to break it to you, but speculation is a part of commodity trading. If there's been a lapse in oversight, then it certainly should be corrected.

You seem to be okay with a degree of socialism, Poker, and we'll just have to agree to disagree on that front. I personally can't stomach the thought of "punishing" corporations for making too much money. What about all of the retirement and mutual funds that have benefited from oil company profits? The government's job is not to make sure that outcomes are equal, just that the playing field is level and that competition takes place. Their attempts at social engineering always seem to backfire and fail miserably.

Why is it the responsibility of oil companies to invest money in alternate energy? Why not the automobile industry? Why not candle makers? Construction companies? They all benefit from petroleum.

I certainly don't mind allocating a portion of my taxes to go towards energy evolvement. Perhaps the legislators should have done that instead of filling every bill with earmarks.

Careful, you may overdose the resident socialists on truth. They're highly allergic.

 

[Poker]

There are several things that Obama won't tell you when he intends to increase taxes for oil companies.

1) For all the profits that oil companies have reaped, the government has made over twice the amount in profit from oil related taxation.

This is obvious enough that I'd have thought no one would need Obama to explain it to them: for all the extra tax that the government has collected from the oil companies' recent windfall, it has lost a comparable amount of tax income from the millions and millions of other corporations and small businesses who are having to write off a much greater portion of their revenues as fuel expenses.

2) Increasing taxes on oil companies will undoubtedly have a negative effect on the U.S. economy and the people of the U.S. as a whole.

In the short term, perhaps. And if the money collected were to be squandered on, oh say, welfare programs, drive-thru abortion clinics, northbound carpool lanes across the Mexican border, kindergarten condom dispensers ... (just pick the made-for-radio liberal-hate line you love most) then I would probably agree with you completely.

If on the other hand that money is used to offset incentives and subsidies given to industries that accelerate the development of green energy solutions and getting them to mass-production (again, the oil companies are invited to this party too!), then in the long run that's a net positive.

We have the technology and brain power to put the energy revolution into full swing. The only thing we've lacked—and still lack, in some quarters—is the political will to devote the resources necessary to make it happen.

Yeah, well I hate to break it to you, but speculation is a part of commodity trading. If there's been a lapse in oversight, then it certainly should be corrected.

You're right, of course it is. And most economists will tell you that a healthy, but not excessive, dose of regulation is a necessary part of speculation. It's a balance that has to be kept, and in this particular case the pendulum swung too far toward deregulation for too long (a specific exception for electronic overseas trading? Senators meet the intarwebs ), and we're bearing the brunt of that lapse as a result.

You seem to be okay with a degree of socialism, Poker, and we'll just have to agree to disagree on that front. I personally can't stomach the thought of "punishing" corporations for making too much money. What about all of the retirement and mutual funds that have benefited from oil company profits? The government's job is not to make sure that outcomes are equal, just that the playing field is level and that competition takes place. Their attempts at social engineering always seem to backfire and fail miserably.

Well I rather abhor the idea of welfare states and such, though I do like certain services paid for by taxes—I'd just as soon not privatize my local police and fire departments or federal military, for example. But free markets are at the very heart of what economic success America has had over the last hundred years.

I just think that "free market, no exceptions" is a flawed philosophy—while it works wonderfully 99-99.99% of the time, there arise unique cases where the system breaks down, and it's the duty of government to step in to restore stability. Failure to do so is what led us over the precipice in 1929, the 70s, and countless other times in history, all over the world. Over the last six years or so a negligent U.S. Congress allowed futures trading to go unchecked, and the runaway speculation that ensued has subsequently enabled oil companies to suck billions of dollars out of our economy, leaving average Americans, through no fault of their own, far poorer than they used to be. That does strike me as an injustice, and it's not "social engineering" to seek to rectify that injustice. Fixing the broken laws that allowed this to happen in the first place, along with temporarily taxing oil companies at a heavier rate as they rake the benefits, and using those funds to accelerate the next-generation energy solutions we need to make our nation more secure are IMO all very fair and prudent measures to take.

Why is it the responsibility of oil companies to invest money in alternate energy? Why not the automobile industry? Why not candle makers? Construction companies? They all benefit from petroleum.

Aside from the mention of autos, I don't follow. Those industries are all consumers of petroleum; hence they're the ones being gouged. Even the auto industry is in dire straits obviously with everyone cutting back on the profit-margin guzzlers.

I certainly don't mind allocating a portion of my taxes to go towards energy evolvement. Perhaps the legislators should have done that instead of filling every bill with earmarks.

I'll raise a glass to you on that.



At the end of the day, the reality is this: we can either get busy setting ourselves on the path to clean energy, or stay rooted in our ideologies by gobbling up whatever the market gives us. The revolution is going to happen eventually either way, the question is how proactive are we going to be about doing what's necessary to turn that corner sooner rather than later, and making sure that the transition is a stable one.



I'm getting as as everyone else probably already did long ago lol, so I'm going to try to retire from the thread for the most part. I think I learned a thing or two along the way, so thanks hal and others for keeping the conversation intelligent and thoughtful. :tup:

 

[hal]

Over the last six years or so a negligent U.S. Congress allowed futures trading to go unchecked, and the runaway speculation that ensued has subsequently enabled oil companies to suck billions of dollars out of our economy, leaving average Americans, through no fault of their own, far poorer than they used to be. That does strike me as an injustice, and it's not "social engineering" to seek to rectify that injustice.

Aside from the mention of autos, I don't follow. Those industries are all consumers of petroleum; hence they're the ones being gouged. Even the auto industry is in dire straits obviously with everyone cutting back on the profit-margin guzzlers.

Since you're out of the thread, I'll just respond and leave out the questions.

As far as futures trading goes... I always tend to be skeptical of the scapegoating that goes on in Congress. There are those who tend to agree and, historically, the markets are better off left alone. The House and Senate have proven over and over that they are no experts at economics (cue John McCain's retarded "I'm no expert at economics" comment). Given that they are in charge of the budget, it's rather sad, isn't it?

Besides, the bottom line is still that oil company profits are right in line with other corporations. There's no excessive profiteering there that I can see. They took the risk and invested insane amounts of capital. It paid off and they are reaping the appropriate awards. That is not always the case.

My point about "who should pay for research on alternative energy" was admittedly a bit muddled by the unnecessary reference to petroleum products. The question stands even without it in that the government really has no right requiring a corporation to invest in anything. Incentivizing tax breaks is altogether different in that it is optional, though one might ask if oil producing inustries are the correct ones to ask to research competing products.

Other interesting reading on why oil companies are hoarding their cash (albeit a bit dated, though relevant): http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/10/oil_company_pro.html

 

[Larkin]

Lets change this thread back into what it was before it changed into this retarded argument between retards and geniuses.

Sure I love reading retarded posts about how the oil company is evil, but after about five pages of it I start to get annoyed. Oil companies make money OMG. Huge industry that has everyone as a customers has huge profits? That can't be real!

OH lets tax them more! Yeah, I want to pay more for their services! What a great idea. Its not freaking rocket science or some huge complex formula. Its how a business works. They will try to make up those lost profits one or another. What do you think they will do?

I don't want to pay more for your hate for big business.

Oh and before blaming the oil business might want to check how much the oil costs before all the charges made by this government and check how much they actually make on each barrel. Actually do the government too. Its fun to see who is really evil.

 

[Luv_Studd]

The question stands even without it in that the government really has no right requiring a corporation to invest in anything.

Does that also hold true for tobacco companies ?

 

[SkaarjMaster]

Both sides are to blame for our present situation as well as the executive and legislative branches of our government. Since we can't just fire everyone in Washington DC and start all over, then let's find a solution and move forward. But one thing I think is if you're going to open up more of Florida's coastline (offshore, whatever) to oil exploration, then we need to build a refinery on the west coast of the US to process all the Alaskan oil and quit selling it all to the Japanese as a long-term solution.

[back on topic]
So if Obama is the Antichrist, then McCain must be the devil himself........oh no, wait, that's a distinction reserved for Cheney.

 

[hal]

Does that also hold true for tobacco companies ?

Are you asking if they should be forced by the government to invest their profits in alternative energy?

 

[ilkman]

Are you asking if they should be forced by the government to invest their profits in alternative energy?

Its a loaded question making reference to the governments regulations on tobacco for health reasons. If the government can regulate tobacco then they should be able to do so with 'big oil'.

At least thats how I understood the question.

 

[gregori]

Lets change this thread back into what it was before it changed into this retarded argument between retards and geniuses.

Sure I love reading retarded posts about how the oil company is evil, but after about five pages of it I start to get annoyed. Oil companies make money OMG. Huge industry that has everyone as a customers has huge profits? That can't be real!

OH lets tax them more! Yeah, I want to pay more for their services! What a great idea. Its not freaking rocket science or some huge complex formula. Its how a business works. They will try to make up those lost profits one or another. What do you think they will do?

I don't want to pay more for your hate for big business.

Oil companies try to make as much money as possible, usually through your pockets (not very controversial) - just like hungry lions will probably try to eat people! Its not there fault, its their nature. That doesn't mean you throw yourself to the ****ing lions and let them roam freely around the city!!!

 

[Iron Archer]

ilkman, oil companies are regulated, why do you think they can't just drill anywhere they want? We're sending out over 700 billion a year in our own money to pay for oil from other countries. It does not make sense to continue on that trend forever.

Regardless of the eventual development of alternative means of energy, which will take quite a while, we need to take advantage of the resources we have. Obama suggests that in 6 years he plans on having 1 million plug-in cars on the road (of which he plans on subsidizing to the tune of several billion dollars). That is not even a sure thing. He can't just promise to get these vehicles made, besides a million cars in a nation of over 300 million people is nothing.

He also promises to get the US off Middle Eastern oil in the next 10 years, and he cannot even make that promise either. The only concrete thing to do is let the drilling begin as soon as possible, regardless of who is going to be the president, and McCain has even suggested that Obama join him in requesting that Congress go back in session to help do just that. Obama keeps changing his position on this matter (and many other matters) to make it look like it's what he's been saying all along.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Iym-8Q7uBY

 

[Luv_Studd]

ilkman, oil companies are regulated, why do you think they can't just drill anywhere they want? We're sending out over 700 billion a year in our own money to pay for oil from other countries. It does not make sense to continue on that trend forever.

Regardless of the eventual development of alternative means of energy, which will take quite a while, we need to take advantage of the resources we have. Obama suggests that in 6 years he plans on having 1 million plug-in cars on the road (of which he plans on subsidizing to the tune of several billion dollars). That is not even a sure thing. He can't just promise to get these vehicles made, besides a million cars in a nation of over 300 million people is nothing.

He also promises to get the US off Middle Eastern oil in the next 10 years, and he cannot even make that promise either. The only concrete thing to do is let the drilling begin as soon as possible, regardless of who is going to be the president, and McCain has even suggested that Obama join him in requesting that Congress go back in session to help do just that. Obama keeps changing his position on this matter (and many other matters) to make it look like it's what he's been saying all along.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Iym-8Q7uBY

 

[Luv_Studd]

ilkman, oil companies are regulated, why do you think they can't just drill anywhere they want? We're sending out over 700 billion a year in our own money to pay for oil from other countries. It does not make sense to continue on that trend forever.

You do realize that any oil from off shore drilling does not go directly to the US for it's own consumption, and that it's essentially just a drop in the bucket compared to that consumption...right?

Regardless of the eventual development of alternative means of energy, which will take quite a while, we need to take advantage of the resources we have.

There's no reason to NOT develop alternative energies - and these would occur much faster if the mindset was to pursue these alternatives rather than continue to depend upon fossil fuels.

Obama suggests that in 6 years he plans on having 1 million plug-in cars on the road (of which he plans on subsidizing to the tune of several billion dollars). That is not even a sure thing. He can't just promise to get these vehicles made, besides a million cars in a nation of over 300 million people is nothing.

if the big three automakers are to survive, they will need to move towards electric and hybrid models. Period. The market is there.

Obama keeps changing his position on this matter (and many other matters) to make it look like it's what he's been saying all along.

McSame is the pot calling the kettle black. McSame has flip-flopped just as much if not more than Obama. Including on the issue of off shore drilling. Of course, McSame got oodles of money for his campain from big oil just before he flip-flopped---coincidence?

The only concrete thing to do is let the drilling begin as soon as possible, regardless of who is going to be the president, and McCain has even suggested that Obama join him in requesting that Congress go back in session to help do just that.

There is a compromise bill being submitted by "the gang of 10", which is a bipartisan group that came up with something for everyone, and concessions for both sides. I think compromise is the answer, not "drill here, drill now" crap.

 

[Luv_Studd]

Its a loaded question making reference to the governments regulations on tobacco for health reasons. If the government can regulate tobacco then they should be able to do so with 'big oil'.

At least thats how I understood the question.

Yes, that is what I meant. Both are commodities that harm the consumer.

 

[hal]

Ah, okay, well in what does the government require the tobacco industry to invest?

You are suggesting that oil harms the consumer?

 

[TWD]

There is a compromise bill being submitted by "the gang of 10", which is a bipartisan group that came up with something for everyone, and concessions for both sides. I think compromise is the answer, not "drill here, drill now" crap.

The gang of 10 is a complete sham in my opinion. First you have to convince Pelosi to bring the bill to the floor in the first place. Then you have to battle parties on both sides doing everything they can to sabotage the bill. Based on what I've read about what is in the bill, it's destined to fail.

The area of offshore drilling off Flordia will be a particularly contentious issue. Some will fight to make certain that Flordia has the final say as to if the drilling is actually allowed. Any drilling provisions gained in the bill would be nullified by Flordia, and since California and ANWAR aren't on the bill it won't lead to any new drilling. Republicans will be forced to vote no, and the Democrats will then try to use it to say "see Republicans are voting against energy reform!"

 

[[VaLkyR]Anubis]

There is only one Antichrist...