[Wdlglivi]

The House rolled back billions of dollars in oil industry subsidies Thursday in what supporters hailed as a new direction in energy policy toward more renewable fuels. ABC News: House Rolls Back Oil Company Subsidies

Progress! My hopes are high!

Critics said the action would reduce domestic oil production and increase reliance on imports. Added Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska: "If you want to do things right, let's tax foreign oil." That's odd, he's telling Democrats how to do things right, yet when it was a Republican House they did exactly the opposite...

Credibility of the Republicans shrinks the more they speak out against the Democrats.

[MzTT]

ABC News: House Rolls Back Oil Company Subsidies

Progress! My hopes are high!

Progress?

So you think Congress passing a bill (that wont make it out of committe in the Senate) penalizing a specific industry for managing to make a profit is progress?

Wow....just wow....

What happens when someone decides that the industry you're in is "making too much money"?

[Wdlglivi]

Progress?

So you think Congress passing a bill (that wont make it out of committe in the Senate) penalizing a specific industry for managing to make a profit is progress?

Hold on. Hold on right there. That is a fantastically inane response. First of all, they didn't MAKE profit. They lobbied for profit. Big difference.

Taking the pampers off this industry is NOT penalizing. They were robbing us at the pump and compromising health regulations.

What happens when someone decides that the industry you're in is "making too much money"? Name me that industry so I can respond.

[MzTT]

Hold on. Hold on right there. That is a fantastically inane response. First of all, they didn't MAKE profit. They lobbied for profit. Big difference.

That is your opinion, and frankly its not rooted in fact.

Taking the pampers off this industry is NOT penalizing. They were robbing us at the pump and compromising health regulations.

I didnt feel i was being robbed and neither did most of the US. We kept buy the shit didnt we?

If they were compromising health regulations then address THAT issue. If you're claiming they did when they didnt, well then you;re just full of shit.

Name me that industry so I can respond.

Did you actually read my question? If you did, you'd realize how inane your response is.

[Wdlglivi]

That is your opinion, and frankly its not rooted in fact.

So you thought...

The Best Energy Bill Corporations Could Buy: Summary of Industry Giveaways in the 2005 Energy Bill Public Citizen | Energy Program | Energy Program - The Best Energy Bill Corporations Could Buy: Summary of Industry Giveaways in the 2005 Energy Bill

FACT! Any other questions?

I didnt feel i was being robbed and neither did most of the US. I don't care about silly assertions, especially a remark that alludes to Americans not caring how much they pay at the pump. Come on now.

We kept buy the shit didnt we? As if there was an 'alternative' option... nice thinking there bub. I do believe the agenda of the oil industry is to make the world dependent on oil, it's all about profit right? Well, this is the direction if they want more.


If they were compromising health regulations then address THAT issue. Umm... excuse me, but we were not invited. Bush had a closed door session with the oil companies (including Ken Lay) to draft the energy bill. It was a corporate/government undertaking behind closed doors. The ones on the other side of the door was you and me. We should be on the same side. What's your stake in the oil industry anyways?

The massive energy bill taking final shape behind closed doors on Capitol Hill this week began in controversy and is heading into more of it.

Secrecy on energy issues began years ago when Vice President Cheney's energy task force met behind closed doors - a controversial process still being debated in the courts. Critical US energy bill crafted in secrecy | csmonitor.com

I repeat, we were not able to address those issues because we were not allowed to.

[DoctorDeryOne]

Progress?

So you think Congress passing a bill (that wont make it out of committe in the Senate) penalizing a specific industry for managing to make a profit is progress?

Wow....just wow....

What happens when someone decides that the industry you're in is "making too much money"?

Didn't they just take the subsidies away? The question is, should they have had this subsidy in the first place?

[Inettypofonee]

Name me that industry so I can respond.

Health care and pharmaceuticals.

[tickerinet]

All this noise about the tax on the oil industry is just that: noise.

It seems to me that the bill is highly unlikely to survive the Senate, and much less likely to be signed by the President.

Matt

[Inettypofonee]

It seems CF LIKED $3.00 gas.

[Jeffery]

It seems CF LIKED $3.00 gas.

I'd rather pay for my gas at the pump then through my income taxes. Particularly when it lends to balancing the budget. But I guess we just get a free lunch if we subsidize the oil companies in defiance of all economic reason.

All this noise about the tax on the oil industry is just that: noise.

This isn't a tax... Its removing their subsidies, which they have proven that they don't need. The only tax they're facing is the regular corporate income tax.

Progress?

So you think Congress passing a bill (that wont make it out of committe in the Senate) penalizing a specific industry for managing to make a profit is progress?

Why should you reward a company which is making a profit? The profit should be more then enough in the first place.

[homerdienru]

What i like to see is a GAS PRICE CAP. The law is simple. If it goes anywhere above 2.20 A gallon the company gets taxed. Just like in the Major Leagues when a Club spends over the cap the owner pays a tax.And all that did was made steinbrenner raise the price of a ticket when you watch the NY Yankees.

[Jeffery]

yeah, and in the past thats when we've started seeing cigarettes, liquor, and porn replace actual currency.

[sarasaraseda]

I'd rather pay for my gas at the pump then through my income taxes. Particularly when it lends to balancing the budget. But I guess we just get a free lunch if we subsidize the oil companies in defiance of all economic reason.



This isn't a tax... Its removing their subsidies, which they have proven that they don't need. The only tax they're facing is the regular corporate income tax.



Why should you reward a company which is making a profit? The profit should be more then enough in the first place.

It's good that you're OK with that. Can you imagine big oil board meetings where the CEO tells the board "well the good ol days are gone my friends, and it just wouldn't be right to make it up at the pump".

[BoBoMasterDesign]

Let me get this straight, you guys want higher oil prices?
Are you like, looking at the whole picture here???

[Jeffery]

It's good that you're OK with that. Can you imagine big oil board meetings where the CEO tells the board "well the good ol days are gone my friends, and it just wouldn't be right to make it up at the pump".

It's going to be paid for one way or the other. I don't think artificially making the price of fuel look lower then it is is a good idea in the long run since it suppresses the necessary economic motivations to move to other sources. Further if its paid at the pump some of the cost will be absorbed by the company's due to the elasticity of demand.

[kranfid]

They are correcting a defect in the previous legislation. The legislation provided tax breaks to companies for drilling and exploration when oil prices were around $10/barrel, and was supposed to include a clause that said if oil prices went over $35/barrel the subsidy stopped. The GOP congress knew about this, and refused to amend the law, in return for huge contributions from the oil industry.

As for the completely misinformed notion that this will be "passed on to the consumer", please note that the oil companies used their windfall profits to pay huge dividends, they didn't increase drilling or build refineries, they just divided up the cash because they had more cash than they could use.

[ClorrerVeks]

They are correcting a defect in the previous legislation. The legislation provided tax breaks to companies for drilling and exploration when oil prices were around $10/barrel, and was supposed to include a clause that said if oil prices went over $35/barrel the subsidy stopped. The GOP congress knew about this, and refused to amend the law, in return for huge contributions from the oil industry.

As for the completely misinformed notion that this will be "passed on to the consumer", please note that the oil companies used their windfall profits to pay huge dividends, they didn't increase drilling or build refineries, they just divided up the cash because they had more cash than they could use.

And thus it is demonstrated that the Democrats best friend, economic ignorance, is alive and well on the left.

[Seiblybiozy]

It's going to be paid for one way or the other. I don't think artificially making the price of fuel look lower then it is is a good idea in the long run since it suppresses the necessary economic motivations to move to other sources. Further if its paid at the pump some of the cost will be absorbed by the company's due to the elasticity of demand.

Higher pump prices would result in economic loss.
Not only would the everyday people be paying more for gas, but everything that’s transported would go up to compensate for the companies added cost.

Actually, the states should love the current method. People shop with the lowered prices and the states are getting more sales tax. If consumer prices would go up to compensate for added transportation cost, people will shop less.

[Xavier_Spinner_Wheels]

Robert, true or false, while making the record profits due to the rising prices Oil execs got some of the highest retirement packages in history.

[Xavier_Spinner_Wheels]

Reino, true or false, anyone with an ounce of common sense was free to share in these profits by simply purchasing shares of stock in the profitable corporations? I know I did

Answer my question first, and I promise to answer yours.