Repubs suck the teat of big oil

same ol' same ol'

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate was on the verge Thursday of approving the first increase in automobile gas mileage in three decades and huge increases in ethanol use.

Democrats were forced to strip away from the compromise energy bill a contentious $21.8 billion tax package, including billions of dollars in tax increases on the biggest oil companies, because of determined Republican opposition and a White House veto threat over the new taxes.

Democratic leaders fell one vote short, 59-40, in getting the 60 votes needed to overcome a GOP filibuster. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana, was the only Democrat to break ranks."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

Originally posted by: [-NM-] Pudd¿nheäd
same ol' same ol'

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate was on the verge Thursday of approving the first increase in automobile gas mileage in three decades and huge increases in ethanol use.

Democrats were forced to strip away from the compromise energy bill a contentious $21.8 billion tax package, including billions of dollars in tax increases on the biggest oil companies, because of determined Republican opposition and a White House veto threat over the new taxes.

Democratic leaders fell one vote short, 59-40, in getting the 60 votes needed to overcome a GOP filibuster. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana, was the only Democrat to break ranks."

Interesting. I wonder what Mary was promised to break ranks?

Puddin' you know as well as I that the taxes if imposed would simply have been passed to consumers. This is the only logical reason why the democrats were forced to take this off the plate - gas prices are already far too high and any substantial price increase would have (undoubtedly) serious consequences on the workforce and thus the economy overall.

---

TWL|Questor
Member Services and Site Support
Email: questor@teamwarfare.com

Originally posted by: Questor
Puddin' you know as well as I that the taxes if imposed would simply have been passed to consumers. This is the only logical reason why the democrats were forced to take this off the plate - gas prices are already far too high and any substantial price increase would have (undoubtedly) serious consequences on the workforce and thus the economy overall.

Owned

diesel, go away, you are a waste of internet bandwidth living in a caveman-era mindset.

questor, i disagree, how long can we stand cowed by the corporations as they make record profits because we are scared. these arent struggling organizations that need the full amount of these massive tax breaks they get. this was eliminating some of the huge tax subsidies they get, not the full amount listed in the OP, but part of it. and it as about time.

the more our politicians are bequeathed to their every whim, the more they will take advantage. we should know we have to take a stand against this economic rape they are perpetrating on the government and more importantly, the citizens. this was a step in the right direction.
Post edited by [-NM-] Pudd¿nheäd at 12/13/2007 5:42:12 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

I don't like it any more than you. Can you suggest how the corps can possibly be taxed while preventing the transparency that I described?

---

TWL|Questor
Member Services and Site Support
Email: questor@teamwarfare.com

I love oily teets!

Originally posted by: Cocytus
I love oily teets!

LONG LIVE THE TEATS!

We are going to feel it one way or the other!

The only reason we don't see it directly is because it's lumped into a tax break for oil companies.

Who cares if oil companies pass it on to us at the pump.

WE ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR IT!

Republicans are being hypocritcal here. Cut the welfare crap you douche bags!

I think I just called myself a douche bag!
Post edited by Cocytus at 12/13/2007 6:19:37 PM

Originally posted by: Cocytus
We are going to feel it one way or the other!

The only reason we don't see it directly is because it's lumped into a tax break for oil companies.

Who cares if oil companies pass it on to us at the pump.

WE ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR IT!

Republicans are being hypocritcal here. Cut the welfare crap you douche bags!

I think I just called myself a douche bag!

I don't think you realize that it wasn't just an ending of subsidies but additional taxes added upon that.
___________________________________________
"My answer is to burn all the fucking oil as quick as possible and then the politicians will have to find a solution.” - R.D.

Our department tested E-85 in our Chevy Tahoe's and Dodge Durangos. You want to talk about mass problems - let's just put it this way, I will never put E-85 in my car, regardless if it's flex fuel capable.

Man, this bothers me because on one hand, the tax will be passed along and on the other, a company that makes a $36 Billion profit doesnt need a fucking tax break. If anything, we need new refineries to help drop the price down and we need to get tell the M.E. to get fucked and start drilling our own resources.

Originally posted by: Haydro
Our department tested E-85 in our Chevy Tahoe's and Dodge Durangos. You want to talk about mass problems - let's just put it this way, I will never put E-85 in my car, regardless if it's flex fuel capable.

Sure, but why not give the people trying to develope E85(or other alternative fuels) subsidies like they give oil companies? Does big oil need subsidies? I highly doubt it.

Originally posted by: Questor
I don't like it any more than you. Can you suggest how the corps can possibly be taxed while preventing the transparency that I described?

well 13 billion over 10 years would amount to a couple of percentage points of the profit given that gas prices stay relatively stable where they are now.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

Originally posted by: Stryk

Originally posted by: Cocytus
We are going to feel it one way or the other!

The only reason we don't see it directly is because it's lumped into a tax break for oil companies.

Who cares if oil companies pass it on to us at the pump.

WE ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR IT!

Republicans are being hypocritcal here. Cut the welfare crap you douche bags!

I think I just called myself a douche bag!

I don't think you realize that it wasn't just an ending of subsidies but additional taxes added upon that.

please link that.

what i have read is that the vast majority, if not all, of the 13 billion aimed at the oil companies comes from elimination of tax breaks, not new taxes.

"Pelosi, D-Calif., surprised even some environmentalists by insisting that the measure include $13.5 billion in taxes over 10 years on the five largest U.S. oil companies. The biggest portion would come from repealing tax breaks the oil companies received in 2004 that were designed to help U.S. manufacturing companies compete against foreign competitors. Most of the rest involves tax breaks provided in the 2005 energy bill."

http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/06/news/energy_bill.ap/


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

Nevermind that both parties are trying to get more ethanol based subsidies, even though it isn't economically solvent to use ethanol. (That's fishing for votes by both sides.)

---

[SMS]Gortok
Production Supervisor, TeamWarfare News Staff
Email: gortok@teamwarfare.com
IRC: #teamwarfare #sms

Originally posted by: [-NM-] Pudd¿nheäd

Originally posted by: Stryk

Originally posted by: Cocytus
We are going to feel it one way or the other!

The only reason we don't see it directly is because it's lumped into a tax break for oil companies.

Who cares if oil companies pass it on to us at the pump.

WE ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR IT!

Republicans are being hypocritcal here. Cut the welfare crap you douche bags!

I think I just called myself a douche bag!

I don't think you realize that it wasn't just an ending of subsidies but additional taxes added upon that.

please link that.

what i have read is that the vast majority, if not all, of the 13 billion aimed at the oil companies comes from elimination of tax breaks, not new taxes.

"Pelosi, D-Calif., surprised even some environmentalists by insisting that the measure include $13.5 billion in taxes over 10 years on the five largest U.S. oil companies. The biggest portion would come from repealing tax breaks the oil companies received in 2004 that were designed to help U.S. manufacturing companies compete against foreign competitors. Most of the rest involves tax breaks provided in the 2005 energy bill."

http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/06/news/energy_bill.ap/

"$21 billion tax package"
"$13.5 billion taxes on the five largets US oil companies ... from repealing tax breaks"

There's $7.5 billion coming from somewhere else.
___________________________________________
"My answer is to burn all the fucking oil as quick as possible and then the politicians will have to find a solution.” - R.D.

I have no idea where the rest comes from, but...

Details on a tax package totaling nearly $21 billion, about two-thirds of it on the major oil companies, was completed late Wednesday, clearing the way for a vote Thursday on the energy package.

Certainly implies that it does not come from the major oil companies.

Originally posted by: Gortok
Nevermind that both parties are trying to get more ethanol based subsidies, even though it isn't economically solvent to use ethanol. (That's fishing for votes by both sides.)

ding.... ftw!

Let's face it, ethanol is just not ready for mass consumption. There are logistical problems first of all developing it, and then there is the storage problem, which leads to the cost problem we see affecting gasoline which is now mixed with part ethanol. And then there is the engine problem, less power from more fuel and breakdown due to ethanol byproduct contamination.

Until we have vehicles that can actually burn ethanol efficienty (which there are none on the market) and an ethanol fuel that burns efficiently (which there is none on the market yet) then laws forcing us to pump it into our tanks need to be revoked.
Post edited by Buzzed at 12/13/2007 8:39:29 PM

Originally posted by: Stryk

Originally posted by: [-NM-] Pudd¿nheäd

Originally posted by: Stryk

Originally posted by: Cocytus
We are going to feel it one way or the other!

The only reason we don't see it directly is because it's lumped into a tax break for oil companies.

Who cares if oil companies pass it on to us at the pump.

WE ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR IT!

Republicans are being hypocritcal here. Cut the welfare crap you douche bags!

I think I just called myself a douche bag!

I don't think you realize that it wasn't just an ending of subsidies but additional taxes added upon that.

please link that.

what i have read is that the vast majority, if not all, of the 13 billion aimed at the oil companies comes from elimination of tax breaks, not new taxes.

"Pelosi, D-Calif., surprised even some environmentalists by insisting that the measure include $13.5 billion in taxes over 10 years on the five largest U.S. oil companies. The biggest portion would come from repealing tax breaks the oil companies received in 2004 that were designed to help U.S. manufacturing companies compete against foreign competitors. Most of the rest involves tax breaks provided in the 2005 energy bill."

http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/06/news/energy_bill.ap/

"$21 billion tax package"
"$13.5 billion taxes on the five largets US oil companies ... from repealing tax breaks"

There's $7.5 billion coming from somewhere else.

uh the 7.5 billion is not on the oil companies. that is quite easy to extract from the various articles on this going around, including the OP.
Post edited by [-NM-] Pudd¿nheäd at 12/13/2007 8:49:49 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.

What in the hell ever happened with ideas like this:





Post edited by Haydro at 12/13/2007 8:55:22 PM

The problem with the water powered engine is... it doesn't work. You see even though you use water like fuel, the engine is actually an electric engine. You burn electricity in order to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen (which emulates combustion) and the hydrogen gas is converted back into electricity. Why it doesn't work is the engine cannot keep itself charged, the energy it takes to split water is greater then the energy you get back from the hydogen. You need to charge it up in order to split the water. Therefore, it's a water and electric powered engine, not just a water powered engine.

There could still be a use for this technology though, for example if an electric-water powered engine has more torque compared to an electric or hydrogen engine, then it has some obvious benefits.
Post edited by Buzzed at 12/13/2007 9:32:14 PM

Originally posted by: Haydro
Our department tested E-85 in our Chevy Tahoe's and Dodge Durangos. You want to talk about mass problems - let's just put it this way, I will never put E-85 in my car, regardless if it's flex fuel capable.

American E-85 sucks.

it's like we took a semi decent concept (from S. America) and decided to implement it using a low energy yielding crop like corn (instead of sugar cane and sugar beats) and have allowed politicians to turn this into an even bigger bureaucracy than it needs to be.

When I think of Ethanol I see it as nothing more than another political quid pro quo financial exploitation.

It's so bad that we might as well let the big oil companies control it at this point....