Fair enough - but we hear enough partisan stuff on the tv every night, it would be nice to discuss it without resorting to cookbook platform positions.Originally Posted by cu260r6
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?
And I won't quote the whole thing to save some space.
1. My question is where's the line on defining "windfall profits" (in a hard # or %age) and why won't that apply to every industry? I know why - b/c it's a politicized issue that's being used to gather votes from people who believe the demonization of the oil industry without knowing/digging into the true issue. I don't think the oil folks are saints - but I don't think they should be treated differently than any other industry.
2. "In the short run" is pretty key to that argument.
I never said it was an entitlement, nor did the article. It's functionally the same plan that Bush had with his stimulus checks. It's a gimick - regardless of who initiates it.
3. I didn't say that doubling revenue would have no effect on profits or tax base. I said that companies are not taxed on revenues, as you originally stated.Example: If a company is operating on a breakeven basis - and it's primary material/cost driver (a steel mill would be a good example) doubled in price, then their output would (approximately) double in price. The market price would adjust accordingly (assuming a competitive market - like steel processing) and the company would still be breakeven. No change in profits, no change in taxes ($0 taxes in both cases), but double the revenue. Of course if a company in the same example (or Exxon) is making a profit - say 10% - and the same happens, then their profit after the related price increases would also be ~10%. The dollar value of the revenues, profits and taxes would double - but here's the kicker - so would the dollar value of the working capital needed to run the business, so the company would have to raise more capital and the return on invested capital stays the same. It's effectively a net wash... that company is no more attractive to an investor than it was before.Of course you're going to be taxed more when your revenue goes up so drastically.
And I agree - removal of the gas tax would not likely effect the price of gas, but that has little to do with the big oil companies, and more to do with an effect on supply/demand at the pump. And it's a stupid idea... McCain bungled that one for sure. I also, as I stated, agree with removal of subsidies. But again - let's get rid of them for other industries too. And while we're at it - let's cut subsidies on the arts too. That should be privately funded IMO. Science subsidies can stay - they have a real impact on our country's economic and defense positions.
4. I mentioned the lowered production not to place blame on anyone - but to point out that the increased revenues are not based on an expanding business, which was the error in your GE parallel.
5.:lol: Really? Interesting. I pulled them right from the site you linked (opensecrets.org).Your numbers regarding political donations are way off
They're accurate - at least as accurate as those in your original argument. If they're inaccurate - then it's likely they're inaccurate to your benifit.
My point in pulling in the lawyers was this - it's a matter of perspective -what the oil industry is giving to the republicans is a relatively small amount in the big picture (though the $$ values do sound big when taken by themselves), so cries of republicans being "in the pocket" are a bit disengenious. Besides, we all know who's giving to the republicans. That's no mystery. They're in the pocket of lots of corporations, and democrats are in the pocket of unions, far-left agenda orgs., and lawyers. There are regulations that require appropriate disclosure for all members of public companies. All industries that give primarily to republicans are out in the open - available for anyone who's interested to see. That's not the case with the democrats. Lawyers and law firms are (conveniently - since they wrote the law) not subject to such tranparency. At least not that I can find - I'd appreciate any sources though!
It's also worth pointing out - again for pespective - that the Oil and Gas industry is 18th on the list of top industries donating to congress. It's also worth pointing out that the top recipients of donations from the top 20 industries are democrats 90% of the time. Again - straight from your site.
Actually I don't, b/c honestly I haven't seen many solutions from you. I'm not particularly partisan - but I am a free market guy. My proposal, on energy prices only, would be to do more than blame and punish oil companies, fund alternatives and hope. 1) I agree that regulation on oil speculators is an appropriate move - as they're more to blame here than the oil companies and frankly, they don't add much value to the supply chain. 2) I think that wind and solar should be invested in through SBIR and STTR funding channels via the DOE and other orgs. When it's developed to the point of being economically viable - it will take hold 3) I think we need to build more infrastructure around nuclear power 4) Continue to invest in technologies to clean emmissions of coal fired power plants 5) Open up some drilling - but protect the more natural, pristine areas (Ted Kennedy's view is not one of them). 6) Most importantly - and some of the above will help - we need a plan to improve the value of the dollar, something I've not heard much about - but is one of the largest contributors to the current price of oil.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.
Oh, and people should properly inflate their tires. Check with your trackside vendor for the correct pressure based on conditions.
Reply With Quote