IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New I don't think it was a mistake either
I think she is talking tax policy
you can call it socialism if you like
Social Security could be called socialism
along with a graduated Income Tax, Medicaid, Medicare, prescription drug benefits, public schools, the Interstate Highway system and so on

Although Kucinich is closer to my personal views, I think Senator Clinton would be a better president than any of the Republican candidates

A
Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy
Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET
All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM
Reggae, African and Caribbean Music
[link|http://wxxe.org|Tune In]
Expand Edited by andread March 23, 2007, 11:21:12 AM EDT
New Sen Clinton is going to be the only reason a Repo is elected
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New Yep
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New Or Obama.
His idiotic "Just wait, we'll have it on our web page" response to a question about his position on healthcare was reminiscent of Dubya' own Secretary Snow saying, "Just wait."

[link|http://www.motherjones.com/news/hellraiser/2003/09/we_551_01.html|http://www.motherjon...09/we_551_01.html]

Obama's incompetence wouldn't be the reason he lost, but lose he would.
bcnu,
Mikem

It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
New Well it's the only way the Party has figured out . . .
. . to lose the election. Run either a widely reviled woman or a black with no track record. Desperate measures for sure, but how else are they going to lose?
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New Really?
She specifies taking away profits on a specific industry.

Doesn't tax policy apply uniformly to all industry?

Its amazing what you will look past on one hand that you will focus on with the other.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New 2006 National Press Club speech.
[link|http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=255982|Senate.gov]:

But we can't just wait for innovation. Just like the Manhattan or Apollo Projects, it takes focus and dedicated resources to make it happen.

That's why today I'll be introducing legislation for a strategic energy fund. We need a serious commitment from government to prioritize advanced energy and a commitment from our oil companies to reinvest their unanticipated profits into our shared energy future.

I want the oil companies to be part of the solution. Last year the top six oil companies had combined profits of $113 billion; more than the annual income of 170 countries.

Now, ExxonMobil had, you know, the highest profits in corporate history. Yet when CEO Lee Raymond was asked about how much his company had invested in alternative energy over the last decade, his reply was, and I quote, "a negligible amount."

Well, that's inexcusable. You know, the oil industry is making $300 million a day, not because they planned on it, not because of great managerial expertise, but because of escalating world demand and therefore increasing prices for this commodity that they didn't create in the first place.

I think it's time that we made sure they put a fair share of their profits toward a sound energy future.

Last month I joined with colleagues in writing the president to ask him to support Senator Cantwell's legislation to make price-gouging a federal crime in our oil and gasoline markets. Now, we still haven't heard back. But I want to reiterate that call today.

But we can do better than that. And here's how.

We need to reform our energy taxes so that large oil companies who reap huge benefits from unexpectedly high energy prices over the next two years will be required to pay a portion of their profits into the strategic energy fund.

Basically, if you take an average of their profits from 2000 to 2004, you add a 10 percent figure on top of that, then you can get to a point where those profits for just two years would be invested in the strategic energy fund.

Now, the oil companies would have the option: They wouldn't have to invest if they did this themselves, if they began making investments in biofuels, in other forms of renewable energy, in new, cleaner refining capacity, solar, wind. If they did it themselves, then they wouldn't have to pay into the fund.

And we ought to repeal the tax breaks that even the oil companies have told us they don't need and put that money into the fund as well.

With prices, profits and with these tax breaks in the fund, you could raise about $50 billion: more than enough to begin the energy revolution that we need.


One can argue with her proposals, but it is clear to me that she is not advocating confiscation of all the oil company profits.

We all know that different industries are taxed differently, for good and bad reasons.

Cheers,
Scott.
New No and you know it
or should

energy tax on energy companies
liquor tax aon liquor companies

what's the big deal?
Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy
Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET
All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM
Reggae, African and Caribbean Music
[link|http://wxxe.org|Tune In]
New but those taxes apply to the customers
and never (well, rarely never) take profits from the companies.

That said: adding an additional tax to gasoline (and other energy) which is already high to invest in other energy sources? Most taxpayers won't sign up for it.

Even if most conservates will recognize that it is an effective mechanism to promote other energy sources. Tax gasoline high and allow ethanol to get a good foothold. Standard economics.

New Just keep in mind . . .
. . every gallon of ethanol made for motor fuel drives up your cost for food.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New Well, there's always sugar cane.
But it has a lot of problems as well. A long detailed article on the history of sugar cane and Brazil's experience with ethanol from it is at [link|http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/2390|The Oil Drum].

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who is not sure he want to see a [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Sugar_Refining_Company|Sugar Trust] resurrected.)
New Lula OpEd at the Washington Post.
[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/29/AR2007032902019.html|Here]. He addresses the environmental impact of sugar cane and other issues in increasing ethanol production.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Not only that
but it also drives up the cost of... fuel. Basically, right now it takes 1.1 calories of input for every calorie of output from those technologies, and guess where the input calories come from?

Yep, oil. It's actually less efficient than just burning gasoline/diesel/etc directly. OTOH, it's a GREAT vote buyer in the farm belt, where people seem to think they have some god-given right to certainty in income denied to most of us.
New Nit: not farm belt -- *corn* belt
It's all about the corn.
===

Kip Hawley is still an idiot.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
Expand Edited by drewk March 24, 2007, 01:22:16 PM EDT
New not corn belt, conagra daniels belt
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New Hey, I thought it was
[link|http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vaNeaWQoHI|All about the Pentiums, baby!]
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New AAAAARRRRGGGGGHHH!!!!!!!
the big deal is that the twats who want to tax the energy companies on their largish 10% margins instead of JAILING THE FUCKING SPECULATORS WHO ARE PUSHING $50 DOLLAR OIL TO $75!!!!! Make it a crime for non energy/government entities to buy oil in the commodity market.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New No, that's not a good idea.
While there are times when speculators clearly collude to drive up prices (e.g. the [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis|California electricity crisis]), it's very difficult to do in a world market with so many producers and so many markets. California was different because electricity had to come in via existing transmission lines.

Oil is a risky commoditiy. It's essential for our industrial age and there are choke points (geographic and technological) that mean the prices can swing wildly (over a few years) even without speculation.

Outlawing non-approved buyers would be an invitation to an even larger underground economy in it. Do you really trust the government (made up of power hungry politicians who "need" campaign contributions, and overworked and understaffed regulators) to know what a reasonable price for oil is? I'm surprised.

My understanding is that most commodity traders eventually get out or go bust. In addition to correctly guessing which way the market will go, they have to know when to get in and get out. That's the tricky part and it's often ultimately guesswork.

Let's let the oil market work and punish those who break the law and manipulate it. Tax the profits and increase the taxes on use to drive down demand, but don't try to regulate the price.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.
New point=missed
traditionally it was oil brokers and companies that drove the oil commodity markets with mild swings when it got tight and loose. Now every 2 bit money manager who doesnt have the vaguest clue about supply and demand is plunging in oil. Our last price respite came when a largish firm that diddled with pension funds lost 100's of millions in the oil market and the other gamblers got scared. If pension funds lose a ton that is taxpayers picking up the tab.

The main point is instead of taxing the oil companies 10% lets tax commodity profits in essential sectors, oil water and electricity natural gas coal at %50. In the case of oil the government would capture the same profit margins as the oil companies at the current rates while the oil companies tax bill would remain the same as today. What I was AAAARRRGGING about is that people think it is exxon bp shell etc that is the cause of these high prices when actually its every steamboat highroller with a top hat who has discovered tulips. Get those fuckers out of the market and we would have 1.85 gas at the pumps.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New I could go along with some of that.
But restricting who can play in the market would be difficult to do in such a way that doesn't make it easier for big players to manipulate it.

Pension funds, insurance companies, etc., should be investing in less risky things than the commodity markets. I have no problem with regulating things like that.

Personally, I think that cheap gasoline has been a disaster for the US. The price is almost certainly going to go up substantially over the next 20 years and a lot of people are going to be hurt. (Hi Beep! ;-) If, 30 years ago, gas taxes had been slowly raised so that they were [link|http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aQ_oXusAQaWU&refer=europe|75% of the pump price] rather than dimes on the gallon, we probably wouldn't be importing so much of the stuff to feed 10 mpg, 6000 pound commuting vechicles. Our foreign policy wouldn't be tied as strongly to the Saudis and other undemocratic regimes, either.

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who thinks that [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bayard_Anderson|John Anderson] was ahead of his time, but still about 10 years too late. He advocated a $0.50/gal gasoline tax in 1980, IIRC.)
New You'll not hear a peep from me on this.
I've paid $4/gallon and driven sub 2 litre cars and agree with the Nat Security implications.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
     Oh sure, it sounds great - (bepatient) - (33)
         I'm sure she just mis-spoke. - (Another Scott) - (30)
             Then you haven't paid attention - (bepatient) - (29)
                 Evidence, please. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                     Off the top of my head - (bepatient)
                 I'm sure she mispoke - (JayMehaffey) - (5)
                     Comfort yourself that way if you like. -NT - (bepatient) - (4)
                         Odd view of reality - (JayMehaffey) - (3)
                             she believes its all hers, thats a core belief -NT - (boxley) - (2)
                                 Yeah, those evil left-wingers! - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                     :-) -NT - (Another Scott)
                 I don't think it was a mistake either - (andread) - (20)
                     Sen Clinton is going to be the only reason a Repo is elected -NT - (boxley) - (3)
                         Yep -NT - (bepatient)
                         Or Obama. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                             Well it's the only way the Party has figured out . . . - (Andrew Grygus)
                     Really? - (bepatient) - (15)
                         2006 National Press Club speech. - (Another Scott)
                         No and you know it - (andread) - (13)
                             but those taxes apply to the customers - (Simon_Jester) - (7)
                                 Just keep in mind . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (6)
                                     Well, there's always sugar cane. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                         Lula OpEd at the Washington Post. - (Another Scott)
                                     Not only that - (jake123) - (3)
                                         Nit: not farm belt -- *corn* belt - (drewk) - (2)
                                             not corn belt, conagra daniels belt -NT - (boxley)
                                             Hey, I thought it was - (bepatient)
                             AAAAARRRRGGGGGHHH!!!!!!! - (boxley) - (4)
                                 No, that's not a good idea. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                     point=missed - (boxley) - (2)
                                         I could go along with some of that. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                             You'll not hear a peep from me on this. - (bepatient)
         Yeah, but... - (Simon_Jester)
         Taxing tobacco to pay for health care/anti-smoking campaigns - (tuberculosis)

It's what's for breakfast!
87 ms