Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by mandym, Apr 17, 2012.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...m-plan-to-regulate-oil-markets/#ixzz1sJbzeApp
Well, yeah! You can't keep raising the prices on gas if you don't keep making it more expensive for oil companies to produce gas....
The truth is that the Obama administration wants the price of gasoline to stay high...and go higher.
All for political appearances. It will accomplish nothing concrete except more government regulation. But that's what they want.
The oil companies have been reporting record profits and still they receive subsidies from the government. They have good lobbyists and also have many congressmen/women in their pockets. You are not so naive as to believe oil companies want to reduce prices are you?
Also, they have said that if the pipeline is built from Canada it will do nothing to bring oil prices down here as that oil will be exported ... to make larger profits.
Obama and the Democrats talk about huge “subsidies” — as if taxpayers are signing billion-dollar checks to oil and gas companies. But oil companies don’t get subsidies. Rather, like every other business, they’re allowed to take tax deductions for the expenses they incur.
A tax deduction and a government subsidy aren’t the same. When politicians use the terms interchangeably, it misleads many Americans.
Oil-company tax deductions aren’t special favors. They are the standard relief afforded manufacturers, mining companies and other businesses to help recognize the costs of operations. Oil companies can deduct their expenses for things like equipment purchases and rig-technicians’ salaries. The point of these deductions — as for any other industry or individual — is to ensure taxes are only levied on income after expenses.
Oil companies can also deduct expenses related to exploration or development. The idea there is to provide an incentive to take on the often substantial risk of seeking new energy sources. When these efforts succeed, the energy market expands, prices drop and America moves that much closer to energy independence.
But even these deductions aren’t unique to energy companies. Many provisions in the tax code seek to encourage certain kinds of behavior. Mortgage deductions reward home ownership. Special tax benefits promote savings in individual retirement accounts or 401(k)s.
Overall, the oil and natural-gas industries claim about $2.8 billion a year in tax deductions. Yet that’s a tiny price to pay for the huge benefits the sector generates for the economy.
Over the last five years, through the thick of the recession, the oil and natural-gas industries have added 160,000 jobs. These firms now employ more than 9 million people. And 2011 saw higher domestic oil production for the third year in a row.
Now, some energy-sector players do get federal subsidies, and they’re massive. They’re the “alternative-energy” companies the White House is so fond of. The wind and solar sectors alone take in $12.5 billion annually in direct subsidies. ...
Who gets more money from every gallon of gas, oil companies or your beloved government?
How's come we don't see the libbies yelling about the payments given to "green energy" companies, that go belly-up in 6 months ?: I mean, those companies get real money.
I highlighted that one line because you need to understand: Oil companies don't care what the price consumers pay is. The correct wording of your statement is, "oil companies [don't] want to reduce profits...."
Increase regulation, and you increase cost to the company, thus reducing profit. Decrease subsidies, and you increase cost to the company, thus reducing profit. Reduce the amount of regulations, reduce the amount of taxes, and oil companies can reduce the final cost to the consumer and still maintain their standard profit line. Simple economics.
CTB, you're arguing against the basic theory of evolution: Survival of the fittest. Competition breeds innovation. The past two years are a perfect example: faced with reduced profits, many corporations held on to their funds instead of putting them back into things like R&D. They did this under the basic auspice of "saving for a rainy day" (meaning, a point when they weren't making enough profit to pay taxes and costs).
When the economic outlook looks bleak, do you go out and spend every dollar you have, and hope that in a year or two you still have a job and can pay for a roof over your head? Or do you wisely put money in a savings account, or even a mason jar in the back yard, and thus remove your cash flow from the economy?
No, the only reason to implement these kind of regulations on the oil companies is to drive their costs up, trying to impact their profit lines, and thus driving the cost of fossil fuels to the consumer to a point where you and I *have* to use alternative means.
Me, I'm looking at a horse and buggy. Save the car for the big trips (over 50 miles). Wal-mart's only 8 miles away from where I'll be living in a year or two; and the job I'm looking to get will only be about 12 miles. It'll be kind of tough during the winter months; but hey, our forefathers were able to deal with it.
BTW: In the final analysis, this is merely a ploy to make it seem like the administration is doing something about high gas prices. In reality, all it will do is increast gas prices that much more.
>Who gets more money from every gallon of gas, oil companies or your beloved government?
Does it matter? How many different businesses are there in the production and distribution of gasoline?
In this case Obama is blowing smoke.
This regulation is needed and I support it!