On May 13, 2:16=A0pm, ray <xxxray...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article <zx7Wj.81574$y05.44...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> =A0Day Brown <daybr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ray wrote:
> > > In article <ik0Wj.115852$Ft5.44...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > > =A0Day Brown <daybr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > >> Dionysus wrote:
> > >>> FROM IBD
>
> > >>> HEAD: DEMOCRATS' WINDFALL TAX -- ON YOU
>
> > >>> In their ongoing war against U.S. oil producers, Senate Democrats
sa=
y
> > >>> they'll slap Big Oil with a windfall profits tax and take away $17
> > >>> billion in tax breaks, among other punishments. =A0The planned 25
pe=
rcent
> > >>> tax on windfall profits would be imposed on oil company earnings
abo=
ve
> > >>> what the Senate's wise members decided was "reasonable." =A0Never
mi=
nd
> > >>> that what's "reasonable" to one person might be punitive to
another,=
> > >>> says Investor's Business Daily (IBD).
>
> > >>> The last time the United States had a windfall profits tax on oil
> > >>> companies, the results were [disastrous]:
> > >>> --Over the entire 1980-1986 period, the (windfall profits tax)
reduc=
ed
> > >>> domestic oil production from between 320 million barrels . . . and
1=
,268
> > >>> million barrels according to the Congressional Research Service.
> > >>> --Oil companies were hit hard by the tax, and in line with basic
> > >>> economic theory, they produced less oil, not more.
> > >>> --The effect of reducing domestic oil production was to increase
the=
> > >>> level of im****ted oil, says IBD:
>
> > >>> At the time, the United States im****ted about 30 percent of its
oil;=
> > >>> today, we im****t about 60 percent.
>
> > >>> In part, that jump in oil dependency was due to the huge tax
advanta=
ge
> > >>> we gave foreign oil companies in the 1980s -- and to the
continuing
> > >>> advantage we give them today by refusing to let our oil companies
> > >>> produce more crude from our own reserves.
> > >>> Revenues from the windfall tax were far less than expected,
because
> > >>> producers pumped less and non-taxed im****ts flooded our market.
=A0
> > >>> Compared with a forecast of $393 billion in windfall tax revenues
fr=
om
> > >>> 1980 to 1988, Congress got a mere $80 billion.
> > >>> *********
> > >>> Dose dim Dems..."stupid is as stupid does" indeed.
> > >> Where the rubber hits the road, is what big oil does with profits.
> > >> Paying the head of Exxon 400 million a year has not done jack
schitt =
to
> > >> increase oil production or drive down the price at the pump. Au
> > >> Contraire, what the high cost of management has done is drive
prices =
up.
>
> > >> And if the tax makes them keep more American oil in the ground and
bu=
y
> > >> more foreign oil, that's good. Use up their oil first. Any investor
c=
an
> > >> see the profit in doing that.
>
> > >> You'd think economic conservatives could figure out capitalism.
>
> > > What we did figure out is that the price of gasoline today will be a
> > > bargain compared to what will happen to the price of gasoline in
this
> > > country if Democrats get this passed. =A0Oil companies no longer
need
> > > American money, they can sell that precious oil to a number of
places,=
> > > and they will be happy to buy it.
> > That's not my point Ray. If we are indeed past Hubbard's peak, then
> > there is a dimini****ng global per capita supply left. If we consume
> > foreign oil now, we will have more of our own oil left for later, when
> > we all expect the price will be even higher. But since it is *our*
oil,
> > our government and economy can use severance taxes and other means
that
> > benefit our economy more than if we had to depend more on foreign
> > supply. Its an ancient capitalistic strategy, to use up the resources
of=
> > the other guy first, keeping ours in reserve for when other sources
are
> > even more depleted.
>
> > The other thing about oil profits, is what the cor****ations do with
> > them. Because of the dramatically high level of American worker
> > productivity, the cost of labor has dramatically declined, but not the
> > cost of management. If we increase reward to the management class
> > thinking that this increases their motivation to perform better, then
> > why do we assume that this same *capitalist* principle does not work
for=
> > everyone else?
>
> > On learning that the CEO of Exxon made 400 million per year, I for
one,
> > have gone out of my way to buy oil products from Exxon's competitors.
I
> > doubt that I'm the only consumer who wants to punish perceived abuse
and=
> > reward those firms who reward personnel more equitably.
>
> > Moreover, if the power elite does not get a handle on it, and middle
> > class incomes continue to decline, the mortgage/foreclosure,bankruptcy
> > problems are not dealt with, then- just as in the Great Depression,
the
> > GOP will take a huge hit, all power will be given to the Dems, and
they,=
> > not us, will decide what is to be done.
>
> In the event you haven't noticed, the Democrats do have most of the
> power today. =A0They control both houses.
>
> Supply and demand is somewhat a simple concept: =A0When the supply is
low,=
> the price goes up. =A0I think you know that already.
>
> If the Democrats at large decided to extort money from the oil
> companies, all they will do is make sure the US oil supply decreases,
> and you know what that means. =A0
>
> As for your plan of using the oil of others and save ours for last,
> that's fine if you want to wait a hundred years or so if such a plan
> would work while in the meantime, America goes broke. =A0
>
> And in a hundred years from now, I don't see the people of this planet
> using oil anyway. =A0I'm sure by then, somebody will develop a new fuel
> that will replace oil, and then any oil left behind on this planet will
> be useless.
>
> --
> All saints have a past--all sinners have a future
>
> Ronald Reagan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Democrats don't control both houses. Liebermen is a Republitard eh!
|
