Quote Originally Posted by cu260r6
When one political party takes in 80% of the donations from the oil industry it’s safe to assume Big Oil’s interests are being looked after by that party. Consider this the next time you hear one party championing more drilling and higher oil company profits: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=E01 or McCain
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...v=rss_politics

That article posted above contains several misleading
assumptions.
1.Despite the vague questions and assertions in the first two paragraphs Obama’s plan offers concrete specifics. The Windfall tax would only be levied against the top grossing oil companies and only if oil exceeded $90 per barrel thereby giving any company an incentive to keep the price low.

2.None of the revenue from the windfall tax would go to “stimulus” checks. In fact, Obama has not advocated for any future stimulus checks than the ones passed in April. Obama’s plan calls for $150 billion in revenue over the next 10 years to be directed at renewable energy research and foreign oil independence. Since the energy companies have shown no ability to develop alternative technologies themselves there is no other way to force energy independence from foreign oil fast enough than through publically funded research.

3.The $64.7 billion the article cited as taxes paid does not count the $14 billion they received in tax breaks and subsidies. How can anyone justify subsidising an industry so royally screwing those that work for a living.

4.The focus on the percentage of profit is misleading. The revenue of Exxon almost DOUBLED from the same quarter last year. Of course you're going to be taxed more when your revenue goes up so drastically.

5.The comparison to GE, tech companies, and other industries is ridiculous for one very important reason. The oil industry doubled their revenue, but created very few new jobs. Companies like GE especially expand their workforce in similar rates as their revenue expands. As I pointed out earlier, and Dion mentioned, the oil industry has a unique impact on the national security and economic security of our nation, so they are subject to increased safeguards.

The mark of a fool is to do the same thing and expect different results. Unless we change something that will have a substantial impact nothing is going to change at the pump. The same old rhetoric of trust the oil companies, they'll do the right thing, isn't working anymore.
.02 from here:
1. If I make a great deal of money working my butt off doing floors and take all the risks, would I be taxed a bit more, after paying my taxes. I don't like the prices I'm paying, but we haven't built a new refinery in about three decades. Heck, the Bass brothers were ruling American Speedway when the last one went up.
2. Forcing a business to invest capital in something with no guarantees makes as much sense as telling a resteraunt owner which clientelle to cater to.(read, go F*** yourself smoking NAZIs, but that's for a different time).
3. I tend to agree here. Quit subsidising things, and they tend to work themselves out.(back to smoking, and I don't even smoke! Geeze.)
4. Revenue doubles, so do taxes paid, or more. Now, adding on to that just because someone made more money due to an external authority not allowing them to invest in a different part of their own industry (refine the stuff where???).
5. Increasing restrictions and putting up roadblocks to an industry then bitching about the end result (yes, a mess) sounds like, dare I say it. POLITICIANS!!

Well. I'm spent, I think I'll head down and enjoy racing at the bar and grill.