Look at the energy industry’s political donations that I posted. You’re right, this IS a very partisan issue, I know motorsports is a really conservative sect, but C’mon, where else can we argue about politics until we’re blue in the face but on the interweb?

1.So your only question is which oil company is defined as reaping windfall profits? Are you afraid this is going to put to large a burden on the mom and pop oil companies pumping oil out of their backyards? :lol: The windfall would be dictated by the price of oil, not % of net income as I already stated.

2.The Congressional Research Service has concluded: “[T]o the extent that a surtax on the corporate income of crude oil producers on their upstream operations could approximate such a [pure corporate profits] tax, this would not raise crude oil prices and would not increase petroleum imports in the short run. While the current corporate income tax is not a pure corporate profits tax, a surtax for oil companies would arguably be an administratively simple and economically effective way to capture estimated oil windfalls in the short run.” [Emphasis added, “The Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax of the 1980s: Implications for Current Energy Policy,” Congressional Research Service, 3/9/06, p. 32.]

We can argue about the term your want to refer to it as, but the “stimulus” is part of a permentant tax rebate, not a simple handout. It’s the equivalent of a tax cut, not an entitlement. From Obama’s site: “This relief would be a down payment on Obama’s long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.” That article WAS mislead as it implied a handout.

3.You honestly believe that of doubling of revenue will have no effect on the profits of a company as large as Exxon or its tax base? The past decade in the oil industry has proven that exact correlation correct. Passing on the costs of corporate tax is debatable. The CBO recently concluded that reducing the federal gas tax or the subsidies to oil companies directly would have a negligible effect on the price of oil because the industry would not pass the benefits onto consumers when they’re making out like robber barons already. As I posted above many experts conclude the opposite is true as well, that a windfall profits tax would not be passed onto consumers at the pumps.

4.The outlook of lower production is the fault of a shortsighted energy industry. They concluded that through their support of Republicans they could count on increased access to drilling whenever demand increased beyond their capacity. This has led to little investment in alternative technologies or any long term solutions. This is exactly why a different solution is necessary because the energy industry will never find one on their own.

5.Your numbers regarding political donations are way off and seem to ignore an obvious fact. The oil industry has given $18 million in federal contributions (not including PAC and Lobbyists and state contributions) contributions through the last FEC reporting period on June 30th while lawyers gave $83 million in total donations. Note: Lawyers are the second largest group supporting Republicans. http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php You seem to forget there are only a few thousand oil executives (at most) in the US while there are 1.2 million practicing lawyers. Remember, corporate donations are illegal, so it comes down to individuals. Given that the oil industry’s influence is still vastly disproportionate to their numbers. Finally, lawyers are not the ones I’m feeling the pain from every time I go to the pump or the grocery store, so stop distracting from the real issue with this red herring.

You obviously disagree with any solutions I've offered, so what's yours? The only alternative I hear is: do more of the same, expect different results, drill, drill, drill.

Lets hear your defense of these windfall profits: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/...oil/index.html