"I want to take those profits and put them into a strategic energy fund" - Hillary Clinton.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1PfE9K8j0g
Now there's a word for government taking the money corporations make and then allocating it back out in the manner they see fit. Oh what is that word? :shhh:
I wouldn't know. Let me get back to you on that.
She had better not try to touch the profits. However, with oil companies raking in the dough like that, I think they can do without some of that corporate wellfare.
She better not try to touch the profits. However, with oil companies raking in the dough like that, I think they can do without some of that corporate wellfare.
dwr0109 Wrote:She better not try to touch the profits. However, with oil companies raking in the dough like that, I think they can do without some of that corporate wellfare.
+1
these are the people that do the exploring, refining, and whatever else to provide us with the energy we need to drive our cars, heat our homes, and power American industry. I don't begrudge any of them their wealth. These people put their money at risk when they could just shelter their money in a bank account somewhere. The oil industry employs a lot of Americans...God bless them.
Corporate welfare? Call it what you want, but I'd give the oil industry and basically any other large employer a crapload of tax breaks and perks for setting up shop in my state. Small business and big business is what makes the US a superpower. It's why we have 4.5% unemployment while socialist Europe has 12% unemployment.
then why haven't they invested in funding the first research fusion reactors?
You guys are too naive. Hillary's not going to do any such thing...
This is just red meat for the populist party faithful.
Its like a conservative candidate saying they are going to "seal the border" or "ban abortions"... Big applause line, but Tulane has a better chance of going to the Sugar Bowl next year than this has a possibility of becoming a serious part of Clinton's election platform.
Oil companies take big risks to invest, suffer through the lean times in the oil market, and then reap huge profits when global demand is high or supply is low. Right now, global demand is high and will continue to be high, so oil companies should be making huge profits. And they have an incentive to invest them in ways that expand capacity, as long as prices stay high. The market keeps an equilibrium. Hillary knows this, she's not dumb (quite the opposite). But Americans don't like paying high gas prices, so its always going to be a source of election rhetoric for the party out of power. Doesn't mean anything.
If you really want to shift away from oil, you have to institute a real federal gas tax, and use the revenues of such to subsidize the development of greener technology that is more efficient, and give greater tax credits to subsidize the purchase of energy efficient/hybrid cars. Detroit can make more efficient cars, but its not economical to make a lot of them if people don't want them. Subsidize the hybrids and fuel cells with money from a gas tax... its a double incentive for consumers to go green, and there won't be a net effect on the economy in the medium term, while our long term economy will be far more shock resistant and stronger, and our national security picture improved.
We have a federal gas tax and its high enough as it is. I wouldn't support any increase in the federal gas tax unless there's going to be a corresponding decrease in other taxes like the fed. income tax or property tax.
I do agree with the idea of giving the car companies incentives to develop more fuel efficient cars.
ecu92 Wrote:We have a federal gas tax and its high enough as it is. I wouldn't support any increase in the federal gas tax unless there's going to be a corresponding decrease in other taxes like the fed. income tax or property tax.
I do agree with the idea of giving the car companies incentives to develop more fuel efficient cars.
It has to be enough of a tax for:
1) Consumers to feel the pinch, in order to discourage the use of gas guzzling cars
2) To generate enough revenue to contribute to meaningful technological development.
Thats why I used the words "real gas tax"
The idea that we are being taxed enough on gas is ludicrous. Economic theory holds that "externalities" have to be priced into the market in order to reach what economists call a socially efficient equillibrium. We're clearly not there yet.
The economic causality to get to efficiency flows like so: Higher gas tax encourages shift towards more efficient cars. More efficient cars on the road dramatically lessen the aggregate demand for gas, which not only saves consumers quantity at the pump, but puts downward pressures on price.
Its very static thinking to assume that higher gas taxes would increase the amount you pay for gas. That is obviously true in the short term, but in the long term, we'd be paying less. That's efficiency.
OUGwave Wrote:It has to be enough of a tax for:
1) Consumers to feel the pinch, in order to discourage the use of gas guzzling cars
2) To generate enough revenue to contribute to meaningful technological development.
Thats why I used the words "real gas tax"
Good idea. While we're at it we need a tax on fatty foods since we know there's a weight problem in America. Maybe an extra $1 or so on hamburgers, hotdogs etc. We also need at least another 1.50 tax on all tobacco products since obviously the american people still aren't getting the message. Perhaps the government should have a tax convention in order to brainstorm ideas of what else it can tax in order to discourage behavior that it has divined is bad for us.
If we have seen anything about America today it's that the government knows what's best for us and should be allowed to "influence" our freedom as much as possible.
How bout this OU. Why don't you and those that think like you voluntarily add say, another 75 cents, to every gallon of gas you buy. Then at tax time just right a check to the government for that amount so they will have it and will be able make some strides in the techological development. I mean you've made it clear you're just not paying enough for gas right now. Seems to me it's your civic duty to voluntarily tax yourself until the government makes it complusory for the rest of us.
You game?
Raise the gas tax if you want, but lower other taxes so that the overall tax burden to Americans does not increase.
Actually I'd prefer to give large tax credits to those who buy and drive hybrids and other fuel efficient cars. Those that continue driving gas hogs would lose out at tax time. I look at it from an energy-independence standpoint, not global warming. Global warming is a crock.
The idea of a strategic energy fund is ridiculous. Who's smart enough and responsible enough to manage that money? The feds don't have a rep for responsible money management. It would be just another gov't slush fund. I think we should be giving the oil companies big tax incentives to develop alternative energy sources and the ability to build some new refineries, not confiscate their profits. That's marxism...let's call it what it is.
fsquid Wrote:That is socialism.
No, that's Fascism.
dwr0109 Wrote:She better not try to touch the profits. However, with oil companies raking in the dough like that, I think they can do without some of that corporate wellfare.
I agree about the corporate welfare....but you're gonna have to show me where they received it.
As for their profits, I won't say she doesn't know where, exactly they go. I think she DOES know, but she's playing to her idiotic liberal base. Those profits go into retirement funds throughout the country.
For her to say this, even for a vote.......would you guys support her? She sounds like f'n Che Guevara.
I think we just need to make sure that the true cost of gasoline is priced into the product. A tax to cover costs of military operations (and other operations) in the Middle East that ensure the flow of oil should be part of the cost of gasoline. Also proper cleanup of oil spills and pollution. If that increases prices, people WILL at some point buy more cars that get better gas mileage. When the demand is there, auto companies will have a market incentive to produce more of them, which will drive down the costs of producing them.
We don't need tax incentives for oil companies. If they cut back production (and if their production is important in the global market), prices will rise to the point where it's financially worthwhile to start drilling again.
I think we just need to make sure that the true cost of gasoline is priced into the product.
GREAT POINT!!!!!
Machiavelli Wrote:I think we just need to make sure that the true cost of gasoline is priced into the product.
GREAT POINT!!!!!
It is, as is speculation. Whether you guys like it or not, petroleum is a commodity. It's traded on much the same way pork bellies are traded.
Petroleum is certainly a commodity. I'm not sure all the costs are priced in though, the way they should be. The US military goes in and secures an area of Iraq, after which Halliburton can go in and drill, and produce oil for profit. Halliburton would not have been able to do so, at least on terms as lucrative, if it wasn't for the US military. The cost of the military action will turn out to be taxed on US consumers, but not as a tax on gas as it should be. I'm sure it would be problematic to separate it out given the political issues, but if we're realistic, most of the past 50 years we would not have anything to do with the Middle East if it wasn't for the oil.
NIU007 Wrote:The US military goes in and secures an area of Iraq, after which Halliburton can go in and drill, and produce oil for profit.
Huh?
Halliburton has not been allowed to drill for oil in Iraq. Halliburton was contracted out to help rebuild the oil infrastructure in Iraq, not take over the fields and drill themselves. The only way they could is if Iraq granted them the right, which hasn't happend. Halliburton helped rebuild them and operate the wells for Iraq until Iraq could take them over. The fields and the oil in them does not belong to Halliburton.
The oil fields belong to Iraq, not the US therefore it's not within the US' power to grant them drilling rights, Despite what any left wing nutties would like to claim on their blogs we didn't go to war so Halliburton could drill in Iraq.
Quote:Halliburton would not have been able to do so, at least on terms as lucrative, if it wasn't for the US military.
Halliburton is one of the few companies in the world that does the kind of work that needed to be done in Iraq. How many companies do you think have the capability to extinguish well fires, rebuild infrastructure and the other extremely complicated things that have to happen?
Quote:The cost of the military action will turn out to be taxed on US consumers, but not as a tax on gas as it should be. I'm sure it would be problematic to separate it out given the political issues, but if we're realistic, most of the past 50 years we would not have anything to do with the Middle East if it wasn't for the oil.
So if I'm understanding your point here you're basically saying we went to war in Iraq for the oil? If so then can you tell me why we didn't confiscate it and why it still belongs to Iraq? Because if you can't your entire point about how the cost should be passed to consumers in the form of a gas tax is based on a faulty premise to begin with.