http://money.cnn.com/2008/0...stversion=2008061012

This just got shot down and it's pretty infuriating.

Some of the important points of the proposal:

Impose a tax on oil companies that could be avoided if the companies "invested the money in alternative energy projects or refinery expansion".

"Require traders to put up more collateral in the energy futures markets and open the way for federal regulation of traders who are based in the United States but use foreign trading platforms. The measures are designed to reduce market speculation."

"Make oil and gas price gouging a federal crime, with stiff penalties of up to $5 million during a presidentially declared energy emergency."


I've heard it for a while now... "let us drill Alaska". I'm all for drilling up there, but unfortunately, there are a ton of environmental groups that bring up lawsuits every time a company tries to. It's also not a fix that would make a positive impact in the next couple of years. As a matter of fact, it would promote even more investing in oil and raise the prices even higher.

This proposal would have introduced measures that would eat into the ridiculous oil profits and reduce the REAL cause of the current oil price spike(which is speculation from investors, there is not a shortage of oil).
Bottom line: Taxing is not normally the answer, but what this would do is take away part of the infuriating profits of the big oil companies, which would lead to less investment in an inflated oil market, leading to lower oil prices. Not everyone is suffering from these prices, some investors are making a killing off of the rest of us. The only way we'll ever see oil prices go down, is if the ridiculous investmenting is brought to a screeching halt, which I don't see happening unless something drastic happens(government intervention, depression, etc).

[This message has been edited by Spektrum-87GT (edited 06-10-2008).]

Don't get angry. Move closer to work!

$5/gallon is in the near future. The automotive age in America is undergoing a profound change.

Hey, buddy, wanna buy a Hummer?

ANWAR's oil wouldn't last long at present consumption rates--even considering we are now down a bit in our consumption. Maybe 3 years??

quote Originally posted by maryjane: ANWAR's oil wouldn't last long at present consumption rates--even considering we are now down a bit in our consumption. Maybe 3 years??

I agree.

I always felt that it was a finger pointing game used by oil companies.

quote Originally posted by Spektrum-87GT: Not everyone is suffering from these prices, some investors are making a killing off of the rest of us.

Enough of our elected officials are in that group that we won't likely see any real legislative changes. If you could afford to take months off work to campaign, buy tv spots and radio ads and billboards, and get yourself elected... do you think you'd be in the 'suffering' group ? or the 'making a killing off the rest of us' group ?

Nope. We won't get any help from Washington here. Not this year. Not next year. Not likely ever. This was posturing for the tv cameras; nothing more.

[This message has been edited by D B Cooper (edited 06-10-2008).]

The energy market needs to be heavily regulated, otherwise you get these kinds of problems. Can you imagine the same thing happening with the electric grid? People buying and selling electricity... a monopoly of electricity producers colluding on supply, speculators and day traders buying electricity and driving up demand - even when they're just stockpiling it on paper and there is no physical demand.

We'd be going through rolling blackouts and $900 electric bills.

Increasing taxes, while it sounds good to the consumer as a form of retribution, isn't the answer, because the cost is always passed down back to the consumer. The next quarter's profits would be just as high or higher, and we'd be paying more for gas.

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: The energy market needs to be heavily regulated, otherwise you get these kinds of problems. Can you imagine the same thing happening with the electric grid? People buying and selling electricity... a monopoly of electricity producers colluding on supply, speculators and day traders buying electricity and driving up demand - even when they're just stockpiling it on paper and there is no physical demand. We'd be going through rolling blackouts and $900 electric bills. Increasing taxes, while it sounds good to the consumer as a form of retribution, isn't the answer, because the cost is always passed down back to the consumer. The next quarter's profits would be just as high or higher, and we'd be paying more for gas.

That's a good analogy. I believe we're going to have to start looking at oil as a utility rather than a commodity. And it's going to have to be regulated, just like electricity. Too much of the world's economy can be disrupted by opportunistic trading.

If your paying $900 electricity bill
how much would it cost you if you ran your house on a generator?
Not $900
If you use power 6 hours in a weekday and 10 hours in the weekend days.
You cost would be about $5 per day x $140 a month.
This in the worst case.
If you had solar panels charging batteries and at night the generator also charged the batteries.
You would be better off again.
Buck the system.
tell no one else.
Don't just sit there and complain.
this is for everyone not just the person who posted the last comment

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: The energy market needs to be heavily regulated, otherwise you get these kinds of problems. Can you imagine the same thing happening with the electric grid? People buying and selling electricity... a monopoly of electricity producers colluding on supply, speculators and day traders buying electricity and driving up demand - even when they're just stockpiling it on paper and there is no physical demand. We'd be going through rolling blackouts and $900 electric bills. Increasing taxes, while it sounds good to the consumer as a form of retribution, isn't the answer, because the cost is always passed down back to the consumer. The next quarter's profits would be just as high or higher, and we'd be paying more for gas.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: That's a good analogy. I believe we're going to have to start looking at oil as a utility rather than a commodity. And it's going to have to be regulated, just like electricity. Too much of the world's economy can be disrupted by opportunistic trading.

Which would you rather?
Economy being disrupted---or supply being disrupted?
Bring oil prices way down, and watch how quickly exploration crews shut down and drilling rigs stack in the tall grass across the globe.
This where most people grossly misjudge the enormous size and cost of energy upstream/downstream endeavors. And, the time lag between discovery and the field or play going online. Months to years. Billions in expenses-not millions--before the 1st nickel in returns drops in the bucket. Much more before those returns become profit.
For those of you who would curb or restrict fossil energy investment--would you do the same regarding other openly traded companies? GM-GE-Ford-Google-Cisco-Phizer-Bank of America? You realize how many millions of Americans have their life savings and retirements, 401ks, mutuals, etc invested in the major oil companies? The money you have in your money markets and even CDs and savings accounts? Go ahead--cut the oil company's profits to the bone and see how fast the dominos start to fall. You won't have to worry about what the price/gal is at your local gas station--your only worry will be finding a station that actually has some gasoline left in their tanks. When you look at BP's or Exxon's stock summary, and see qty of shares outstanding--who do you think it is that owns most of those? The very rich? Hardly. The common person who puts a few bucks each payday into a 401k or money market or any other area for their retirement and rainy days. They probably don't directly own the shares, but the financial concern that manages their retirement accounts does. Most 401ks carry a very diversified portfolio. A financial-a healthcare-a transportation-a utility-an agri-a manufactoring-etc etc, and always an energy. Your local bank is doing the same thing with it's depositors' money. You think it was just Enron employees that lost everything when that company folded? Remember how many everyday folks lost everthing they had when the techs hit bottom a few years ago?
Go ahead-break em--you think it's bad now?--just wait.
You want the majors to invest in the oil chalks of the mid west? Where do you think that money (more billions in costs) is going to come from? Gasoline sales at $2.49/gal won't get it done. You expect Shell to develop that huge field in the deep Gulf of Mexico? Not with $2.49/gal they won't. They won't even spud a core bit into the soft sediment with that income.

Oil isn't cheap, and it isn't easy or cheap to find, drill for, recover or produce.

Note that some of the plays were discovered in 1999, and some won't come on line till later this year,(Thunderhorse) or later this decade. (Jack) $100 million/shot and some will be dry holes.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 06-11-2008).]

I do see your point but I'm not sure if 401k's are going to matter to folks if they can't afford to invest money because too much of their income is devoted to paying for gas. Vicious circle I guess.

My worry is with the climbing gas prices that low income folks are going to feel a real crunch. When I was in college I had a job making $10 per hour and gas was .99. I can't imagine making $10 now and spending $4 a gallon.

If the fuel prices continue to rise, and the costs of goods also, where is the extra money going to come from? Once people cut out all extra spending? I guess they will just charge it on credit cards but how long will that last?

I saw a poll on CNN today that most Americans are concerned about high gas prices but don't think its a major problem. Well, honestly most Americans are idiots. We knew that fossil fuels would be in high demand one day and have done very little to find alternative sources for energy. For some reason we don't address a problem until its sitting in our face starring at us.

"We Have Met the Enemy and He is Us"-Walt Kelly

quote Originally posted by 30+mpg: Hey, buddy, wanna buy a Hummer?

I've been asked that before at truck stops. (For the record, I've always politely declined.)

quote Originally posted by Spektrum-87GT: Bottom line: Taxing is not normally the answer, but what this would do is take away part of the infuriating profits of the big oil companies, which would lead to less investment in an inflated oil market, leading to lower oil prices. Not everyone is suffering from these prices, some investors are making a killing off of the rest of us. The only way we'll ever see oil prices go down, is if the ridiculous investmenting is brought to a screeching halt, which I don't see happening unless something drastic happens(government intervention, depression, etc).

If you want to punish the oil companies, just say so. But don't think it's going to lead to lower prices for petroleum products. Adding taxes to the oil industry will only drive up the cost of oil. It will not make it go down.

People like to condemn the oil companies for "excess profits" but the media folks who are quickest to jump on that bandwagon don't mention the profit margins that other industries enjoy. The cosmetics industry (just to pick an example) makes more profit than the oil industry does. Profit margin for the oil industry is (IIRC) around 10%, which ain't all that special; since volume is up, sales are up, and profits are too--but they're still making about the same profit, percentage-wise, that they always have been.

The fact that oil is expensive is not the fault of the companies who pump, refine, and sell the stuff. Raising taxes on them because you're angry at the high price of oil is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

* * *

As for ANWR, while it's true that the total known reserve there is only a few years' worth at present consumption rates, we wouldn't be pumping it out that fast. "Present consumption" is all the oil we use. ANWR would only be good for a few years' worth of oil if we used only oil from ANWR and stopped getting oil from other sources, but we wouldn't--COULDN'T--do that. Whatever we could pump from ANWR would, however, increase oil supply on the world market, thus driving prices down. A couple hundred thousand barrels per year would help.

And notice that I said "known reserve". As I recall it's been decades since ANWR was surveyed--how much oil is actually there? Has anyone checked with modern technology?

And ANWR isn't the only untapped reserve of oil that the US has, either. We're not allowed to drill in ANWR, yes, but we're also not allowed to drill off our own coasts. (China, BTW, is drilling about 75 miles off our coast.) We're not allowed to exploit our natural resources; and we're not allowed to build new refineries, either.

Every single Congress over the past 30 years has done NOTHING to increase the supply of energy; it's always "conserve, conserve, conserve". If conservation alone worked as a strategy for ensuring prosperity, Haiti would be the richest country on the planet. You want to punish someone for high oil costs? Vote 'em all out!

Ed

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: The energy market needs to be heavily regulated, otherwise you get these kinds of problems. Can you imagine the same thing happening with the electric grid? People buying and selling electricity... a monopoly of electricity producers colluding on supply, speculators and day traders buying electricity and driving up demand - even when they're just stockpiling it on paper and there is no physical demand. We'd be going through rolling blackouts and $900 electric bills. Increasing taxes, while it sounds good to the consumer as a form of retribution, isn't the answer, because the cost is always passed down back to the consumer. The next quarter's profits would be just as high or higher, and we'd be paying more for gas.

That's already happening, albeit with slightly different methods. Look at ENRON. The state of CT though t that if we deregulated our electrical industry that we would have competition and thus lower prices. Instead we are faced with a monopoly on electricity and usually pay the highest prices in the country. YAY free market!

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: The energy market needs to be heavily regulated, otherwise you get these kinds of problems. Can you imagine the same thing happening with the electric grid? People buying and selling electricity... a monopoly of electricity producers colluding on supply, speculators and day traders buying electricity and driving up demand - even when they're just stockpiling it on paper and there is no physical demand. We'd be going through rolling blackouts and $900 electric bills. .

Thats pretty much what ENRON did.
How'd that work out?

quote Increasing taxes, while it sounds good to the consumer as a form of retribution, isn't the answer, because the cost is always passed down back to the consumer. The next quarter's profits would be just as high or higher, and we'd be paying more for gas.

I agree.

I wish I knew what the answer to this conundrum is.
Maybe the smartest guy on the forum will tell us.

------------------

Will John McCain really be an improvement over George W. Bush?
Or just more of the same? Who knows?

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 06-11-2008).]

http://www.businessweek.com...EmailedStories_ssi_5
.
.
In tax terms, the U.S. government is kinder to oil companies. According to Securities & Exchange Commission filings, Exxon paid an effective tax rate of 34% to the U.S. government in 2007, or $5.12 billion. While cheaper than rates from some foreign governments, it's still a higher rate than many U.S. companies pay. A BusinessWeek collaboration with Capital IQ in December, 2007, found that the average percentage of earnings spent on taxes by companies that make up the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index was 26%, well under the 35% official U.S. corporate income-tax rate. Companies achieved lower taxes in a variety of ways, from taking advantage of lower tax rates abroad to benefiting from industry-specific breaks.
.
.
Industry-Specific Tax Breaks
However, Exxon's critics point out that its stated tax rate doesn't reflect a number of deductions and tax breaks that are afforded the oil and gas industry in the U.S. Erich Pica, a spokesman for the environmental group Friends of the Earth, says the U.S. federal tax code contains more than $17 billion in breaks to benefit the oil and gas industry for fiscal years 2007-11.

That $17 billion is made up mainly of tax breaks newly offered or extended in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, including a "percentage depletion allowance" that allows oil companies to deduct 15% of their sales revenue, to reflect the declining value of their investment, and 70% of their drilling costs.

Additionally, oil and gas companies pay reduced royalty fees on products they recover from federally owned waters, which Pica says could cost taxpayers $65 billion over five years.
.
.
The debate over whether Big Oil pays too much or too little is taking place alongside a battle for government resources between conventional and renewable energies. When Congress passed the 2007 energy bill in December, it kept tax credits for oil and gas companies while allowing those for wind and solar power to expire this year. Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), are now pushing for the Renewable Energy & Energy Conservation Tax Act (HR 5351), which would repeal $18 billion in tax subsidies for large oil and gas companies.

If you want to see insane profits look at the actual costs of medications vs. what they charge us.
http://liberty.hypermart.ne...escription_Drugs.htm
It's true according to Snopes.
http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/generic.asp

quote Originally posted by Spektrum-87GT: This proposal would have introduced measures that would eat into the ridiculous oil profits and reduce the REAL cause of the current oil price spike(which is speculation from investors, there is not a shortage of oil).

How would raising the taxes on oil companies stop speculators from driving up prices?

quote Bottom line: Taxing is not normally the answer, but what this would do is take away part of the infuriating profits of the big oil companies,

"Infuriating profit"? What is your objection? That they made too much in *total dollars*, or that they get too much *percentage profit*? What would be a reasonable amount (what amount would you *approve*)?

quote which would lead to less investment in an inflated oil market, leading to lower oil prices.

How would this tax lead to less investment?

A related question - would you be willing to pay more for gas in order for a bill like this to pass?

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 06-11-2008).]

quote Originally posted by Monkeyman: I've been asked that before at truck stops. (For the record, I've always politely declined.)

Didnt expect it to be on here.... you know your desperate for gas money whe your offering them on a public forum

I just don't get it. What are you Pissed about?

If you don't like gas prices ***** to CONGRESS!

The oil companies make 4% profit, THAT'S IT! In any other industry in the world they would be going bankrupt at that rate.

Congress makes 15% profit on oil revenues. And just what are they doing with all those hundreds of billion of our dollars? Wasting it on social engineering, corn subsidies, and other pork projects that we do not need.

Congress is ALSO responsible for the US falling from 9 million barrels per day of oil production in 1985 to less than 5 million barrels per day in 2008. The more dependent we are on foriegn oil the more we will pay because we have to ship the **** here from overseas and that cost money.

tax the oil companies?

Yeah, great idea, that'll make more oil and make it cheaper!

1) I was under the impression that the oil companies would have had the choice of whether to waste that money on taxes or invest it in development of alternative energy sources. Who would piss money away on taxes if they had the choice of doing anything even remotely useful with it ? If there was serious money being spent on alternatives in the past (or now for that matter) we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

2) How much of the current 130/bbl oil price has to do with supply and demand ? How much of it has to do with speculation ? IMO it really wouldn't hurt to get the damn speculators out of the price equation. Mid East politics alone makes oil price volitile enough without a mob of investors panicing every time the TV news runs a story about anything in the Mid East. If any regulation could get us some damn stability in the energy market, it would probably do more good than harm.

3) what's wrong with making price gouging a federal offense ? would it be enforced ? maybe, maybe not. But it would only take a couple examples to put some fear into those who would jack up prices 0.50 a gallon just because a holiday weekend is coming up.

just my 0.02....

quote Originally posted by D B Cooper: 3) what's wrong with making price gouging a federal offense ? would it be enforced ? maybe, maybe not. But it would only take a couple examples to put some fear into those who would jack up prices 0.50 a gallon just because a holiday weekend is coming up. just my 0.02....

I've never understood how people can ask this.
Who determines what "price gouging" is?
Pretty sure a couple years back in FL after a hurricane a enterprising entroupenoer <sp?> drove down and picked up just about every portable generator he could afford along the way. When he got there he set up a road side stand and started selling them for $100 over retail cost. the authorities came in said he was gouging and profiteering, closed him down and confiscated all his merchandise..
So who won? He was out thousands, the locals who couldnt get a generator locally were still without power, and the state had a bunch of generators that they had to auction off at a later date.. Supply and demand.
Or.. there are only about $40 dollars worth of parts in an Ipod.. how dare Apple charge $200 for those things! that's profiteering!

Everyone knows about the day before a holiday 10c price jump.. why didnt you buy 2 days in advance? The oil/gas companies have to truck and move millions of gallons of gas to be ready for the expected surge in use.. were they supposed to do that for free?

I love how everyone thinks the oil companies don't invest their money.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: I love how everyone thinks the oil companies don't invest their money.

Or, more important, don't invest their money into alternative fuels research.

Doesn't it make good business sense to discover the technology that'll replace your technology?

------------------
Nick www.naskie18.com GoogleTalk: nick@naskie18.com

quote Originally posted by Uaana: Everyone knows about the day before a holiday 10c price jump.. why didnt you buy 2 days in advance?

Lol I did fill up 2 days beforehand... and 2 days before that... and 2 days before that... My Fiero only has an 11.3 gallon tank 2 days' round trip.

quote The oil/gas companies have to truck and move millions of gallons of gas to be ready for the expected surge in use.. were they supposed to do that for free?

yeah, and Best Buy stocks up on Ipods every year in anticipation of Christams... but do they raise the price $20 to offset the cost of trucking more product in ?

quote Originally posted by naskie18: Or, more important, don't invest their money into alternative fuels research. Doesn't it make good business sense to discover the technology that'll replace your technology?

How are they supposed to invest in alternative energy when they only make 4% on what they sell now AND it is getting harder and harder to get THAT with Congressional BS and blabbering fools threatening to increase their corporate taxes and dragging them in front of committees to explain why they make money (GASP! The bastards) in a freemarket economy when the Congressional questioners are the REAL problem?

For the price gouging a true story, ( granted at the user level) Right after 9-11 a gas station operated by a person of mid-eastern decent, displayed a flag other than the US flag and raised the price of gas at this station by 1 dollar a gallon, price of gas at that time was what 1.50 a gallon so call it 2.50 a gallon or maybe somewhat higher. The next day 4 local types walked into the store , pulled the operator out of the store and into the street, and beat this man just about to death. The next day the flag was down as was the price of gas. Maybe this should happen to all the spectulators in oil trading on the stock market. They seem to be the ones driving up the price.

quote Originally posted by naskie18: Or, more important, don't invest their money into alternative fuels research. Doesn't it make good business sense to discover the technology that'll replace your technology?

You should tell BP they don't invest in things other then oil................

quote Originally posted by Toddster: How are they supposed to invest in alternative energy when they only make 4% on what they sell now ?

Is that 4% profit before or after they pay this guy his,

Oil: Exxon Chairman's $400 Million Parachute
Exxon Made Record Profits in 2005

?

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1841989

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

quote Originally posted by Spektrum-87GT: This just got shot down and it's pretty infuriating. It's also not a fix that would make a positive impact in the next couple of years. This proposal would have introduced measures that would eat into the ridiculous oil profits and reduce the REAL cause of the current oil price spike(which is speculation from investors, there is not a shortage of oil). Bottom line: Taxing is not normally the answer, but what this would do is take away part of the infuriating profits of the big oil companies, which would lead to less investment in an inflated oil market, leading to lower oil prices. Not everyone is suffering from these prices, some investors are making a killing off of the rest of us. The only way we'll ever see oil prices go down, is if the ridiculous investmenting is brought to a screeching halt, which I don't see happening unless something drastic happens(government intervention, depression, etc).

I agree it is infuriating, but for a different reason.


First of all, you are upset about the speculating driving prices up. Then you say that opening drilling in oil fields wouldn't do anything for YEARS. Yes it would. You want to end this speculating driving up prices? Pass a bill opening the ANWAR field and the coastal waters. Hey, even just get DEMOCRATS TALKING about passing such a bill. Then watch speculators RUNNING for the exits and watch the price of oil go down.

But no. The BRILLIANT plan by the democrats is to tax oil companies on their "windfall profits". They make about 4% return on investment. At least that is what I am hearing. Maybe it is even DOUBLE. 8%. If Microsoft went to 8% return on investment, they would be SCREAMING, they would be so upset that is all they were getting. When is the last time you heard the government wanting to tax Microsoft for "windfall profits"?

Since when did you feel it was a good idea to let the U.S. government determine what is a reasonable profit?? And where are you going to stop if they do it to this industry?

And you REALLY trust the democratic led congress that they are going to take that money and directly help YOU??? Really? I mean, you REALLY thought they would spend it to help you? Like they were going to send checks to americans proportionate to what they were "gouged"? Uh, yeah. THAT would happen.


You have democrats that have intentionally and dogmatically prevented U.S. oil drilling, limiting supply, and then THEY create the situation and then THEY are going to be trusted to fix it??? By TAXING?

Well, we don't want the environment ruined. Good. So we prevent U.S. drilling in waters off shore, and then Cuba gets China to come and drill FIFTY MILES off Key West. Yeah. I bet China will have a GREAT environmental concern and record. But don't let a U.S. company drill 49 miles off shore.

Here is an example of the idiocy:

Janesville, Wisconsin GM plant union workers make SUV's. Because they are union, they vote DEMOCRAT all the way. Because democrats are "for the workers". So Wisconsin gets TWO democratic U.S. senators.

Democrats are pro-environment and so want no drilling off shore or in Alaska, or really ANYWHERE near the U.S.

We wind up having to import a huge amount of oil.

Geopolitical circumstances change that rapidly drive up the price of oil.

Our democratic policies preventing U.S. drilling prevent us from being able to blunt the impact by using our own production.

Gas prices rise drastically AND RAPIDLY. Too rapidly for a corporate behemoth like GM to see trends, and react to them, and change production.

GM SUV sales plummet.

GM has nothing else ready to change production over to, and SUV's aren't selling, so they close the Janesville, Wisconsin GM plant, with the loss of hundreds of good paying jobs.

Way to go, GM union workers. You voted FOR democrats because they are "for workers". And they enact policies that cause YOU TO LOSE YOUR JOBS.

AND THEN, the democratic governor and senators blast GM for closing the plant, and for not providing "job training"?!!! JOB TRAINING?? For what jobs?? You made policies that blew the jobs up. And you taxed Wisconsin to the point where businesses have fled to other states and took the jobs with them. What jobs??

INFURIATED? Yeah. I'm infuriated.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: Is that 4% profit before or after they pay this guy his, Oil: Exxon Chairman's $400 Million Parachute Exxon Made Record Profits in 2005 ? http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1841989

You're still confused. Let me help.

BUSINESS are the good guys, they provide jobs, services, make life easier.

GOVERNMENT are the bad guys, they cost us money, provide next to nothing, make life more complicated.

You're welcome

quote Originally posted by ron768: For the price gouging a true story, ( granted at the user level) Right after 9-11 a gas station operated by a person of mid-eastern decent, displayed a flag other than the US flag and raised the price of gas at this station by 1 dollar a gallon, price of gas at that time was what 1.50 a gallon so call it 2.50 a gallon or maybe somewhat higher. The next day 4 local types walked into the store , pulled the operator out of the store and into the street, and beat this man just about to death. The next day the flag was down as was the price of gas. Maybe this should happen to all the spectulators in oil trading on the stock market. They seem to be the ones driving up the price.

Yes, by all means. Instead of constitutionally enacting policies that address the issues, let's have a society where if people don't sell us something we want at a price we find acceptable, let's physically beat the person until they lower the price to the point we want to pay.

THAT is the kind of country we want to live in.

I can understand the emotions of the "4 local types". And yet is STILL is a despicable act and I find it absolutely reprehensible that it would be presented as an American way of dealing with things.

I have given out about 4 negative ratings in 9 years on this forum, and I ALMOST gave one out for this comment. But I'm going to wait to see if you have any thoughts of reconsidering this viewpoint and maybe backing away from it.

WHO SALARY TOTAL COMPENSATION STOCK VALUE
Median Household Income $48,000 N/A N/A
John Carrig, CFO, ConocoPhillips $817,500 $16,416,379 $15,546,225
Rex Tillerson, CEO, Exxon Mobil $1,750,000 $16,726,742 $9,832,947
David O'Reilly, CEO, Chevron $1,650,000 $31,543,185 $34,425,403
J. Van Der Veer, CEO, Royal Dutch Shell 1,775,000 euros 4,692,909 euros N/A
Tony Hayward, CEO, BP 877,000 pounds 2,153,000 pounds N/A
Steve Ballmer, CEO, Microsoft $620,000 $1,279,821 N/A
Jeffrey Kindler, CEO, Pfizer $1,462,500 $9,513,440 N/A
Reed Hastings, CEO, Netflix $850,000 $2,418,577 $36,452,238
Leslie Moonves, CEO, CBS $5,323,367 $36,816,827 $6,647,781
Source: Forbes, U.S. Census Bureau
Note: Executive pay as of end of 2007 fiscal year. U.S. Median household income as of 2006.
http://www.thepittsburghcha...16375011/detail.html

Just answer the question Todd,

Was that profit of 4% before or after they paid these guys?

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: Just answer the question Todd, Was that profit of 4% before or after they paid these guys?

OK, WHO CARES! There is your answer. It is NOT YOUR MONEY to question their salaries.

These are PUBLICALLY owned companies. That means stock holders make the decisions as to CEO salaries. If they are the ones coughing-up THEIR money then the question is:

WHAT business is it of yours who earns what?

Just answer the question.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: I agree it is infuriating, but for a different reason. First of all, you are upset about the speculating driving prices up. Then you say that opening drilling in oil fields wouldn't do anything for YEARS. Yes it would. You want to end this speculating driving up prices? Pass a bill opening the ANWAR field and the coastal waters. Hey, even just get DEMOCRATS TALKING about passing such a bill. Then watch speculators RUNNING for the exits and watch the price of oil go down. But no. The BRILLIANT plan by the democrats is to tax oil companies on their "windfall profits". They make about 4% return on investment. At least that is what I am hearing. Maybe it is even DOUBLE. 8%. If Microsoft went to 8% return on investment, they would be SCREAMING, they would be so upset that is all they were getting. When is the last time you heard the government wanting to tax Microsoft for "windfall profits"? Since when did you feel it was a good idea to let the U.S. government determine what is a reasonable profit?? And where are you going to stop if they do it to this industry? And you REALLY trust the democratic led congress that they are going to take that money and directly help YOU??? Really? I mean, you REALLY thought they would spend it to help you? Like they were going to send checks to americans proportionate to what they were "gouged"? Uh, yeah. THAT would happen. You have democrats that have intentionally and dogmatically prevented U.S. oil drilling, limiting supply, and then THEY create the situation and then THEY are going to be trusted to fix it??? By TAXING? Well, we don't want the environment ruined. Good. So we prevent U.S. drilling in waters off shore, and then Cuba gets China to come and drill FIFTY MILES off Key West. Yeah. I bet China will have a GREAT environmental concern and record. But don't let a U.S. company drill 49 miles off shore. Here is an example of the idiocy: Janesville, Wisconsin GM plant union workers make SUV's. Because they are union, they vote DEMOCRAT all the way. Because democrats are "for the workers". So Wisconsin gets TWO democratic U.S. senators. Democrats are pro-environment and so want no drilling off shore or in Alaska, or really ANYWHERE near the U.S. We wind up having to import a huge amount of oil. Geopolitical circumstances change that rapidly drive up the price of oil. Our democratic policies preventing U.S. drilling prevent us from being able to blunt the impact by using our own production. Gas prices rise drastically AND RAPIDLY. Too rapidly for a corporate behemoth like GM to see trends, and react to them, and change production. GM SUV sales plummet. GM has nothing else ready to change production over to, and SUV's aren't selling, so they close the Janesville, Wisconsin GM plant, with the loss of hundreds of good paying jobs. Way to go, GM union workers. You voted FOR democrats because they are "for workers". And they enact policies that cause YOU TO LOSE YOUR JOBS. AND THEN, the democratic governor and senators blast GM for closing the plant, and for not providing "job training"?!!! JOB TRAINING?? For what jobs?? You made policies that blew the jobs up. And you taxed Wisconsin to the point where businesses have fled to other states and took the jobs with them. What jobs?? INFURIATED? Yeah. I'm infuriated.

I do see your point to an extent, but to blame the line worker for the company's failure seems unfair. The guy installing bumpers on an suv does not have a say in what the plant makes. He doesn't care if its an suv, car truck or hybrid. Its not like they have a vote every year on what they are going to build. Where was the leadership? Nobody predicted that gas prices would rise and the demand for large suv's would fall? Really?

That was kind of my point in my first post. Why are we so blind to wait until a problem is critical? GM was making electric cars in the 80's, How come that technology has not been pursued over the last 20 years? Car companies boast that they have "x" number of models that get 30 mpg's or better. How come the Fiero was getting 30 mpg's 25 years ago and that has not improved?

There is plenty of blame to go around, oil companies, gov't, car companies and the American consumer.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: You should tell BP they don't invest in things other then oil................

Sorry, my response was supposed to come across as agreeing with the post in front of me...that I don't understand why people don't think that oil companies are investing in things other than oil; and my reasoning was that it makes good business sense to develop the technology that will replace your current technology.

For some reason, at least most of the people I talk to, think that oil companies are simply pocketing the money they make and people simply can't fathom the concept of oil companies investing in alternative fuel R&D, and I simply can't understand why people can't make that connection.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: How are they supposed to invest in alternative energy when they only make 4% on what they sell now AND it is getting harder and harder to get THAT with Congressional BS and blabbering fools threatening to increase their corporate taxes and dragging them in front of committees to explain why they make money (GASP! The bastards) in a freemarket economy when the Congressional questioners are the REAL problem?

The only thing that is BS is that they're only making 4% profit. Get real, someone is cooking books or something to get those numbers. You don't raise prices 400% in the past 5 years and not generate more profit. You don't see profits above 10 billion/year and say it's only 4%. Those numbers are manipulated beyond belief.

I think the important question here is, why are you defending these oil companies? My guess? You're one of the investors driving these prices up to insane levels. Or, you read faux news and believe everything they tell you.

Then again, I don't think many people listen to you. I don't see how someone could actually take someone seriously that has blindly supported the direction this country has been heading for the past 4 years.

quote Originally posted by naskie18: Sorry, my response was supposed to come across as agreeing with the post in front of me...that I don't understand why people don't think that oil companies are investing in things other than oil; and my reasoning was that it makes good business sense to develop the technology that will replace your current technology. For some reason, at least most of the people I talk to, think that oil companies are simply pocketing the money they make and people simply can't fathom the concept of oil companies investing in alternative fuel R&D, and I simply can't understand why people can't make that connection.

That makes a lot more sense. You should tell them other peoples about BP. They all invest in ways to make money from new sources but BP brags about it more then the others.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: BUSINESS are the good guys, they provide jobs, services, make life easier.

Yeah, companies like Enron, Tyco, Halliburton, just to name a few, they are all good guys. Hey, those pharmaceutical companies are good guys, too.

Believe it or not, companies can become greedy and exploit people. They can become so large that they have too much power and the only people that can keep them in check is the government.

Seriousy, get off the nuts of corporate America. There are good companies out there that do good things for this country, but there are also horrible companies that need to be kept in check.

Is taxing the answer? No.

Is regulation the answer? Yes, it is.

Go ahead, your entitled to your opinon. Just like Imm entitled to mine. I didnt serve 20 years defending the Constitution to keep my opinon to my self. But if you read the post, you should have figured out that the gas price wasn't what set it off. Today, it might just be.