SouthernDemocrat said:I bet almost anyone would trade the ninties for the Bush years.
Besides, the Clinton Administration consistently recieved good ratings from the League of Conservation Voters. The Bush Administration is the first ever to recieve an F rating from the non-partisan organization.
cnredd said:Oookkkkkaaayyyyy....
And the grades of an Environmental Political Group correlates with my comment HOW?
SouthernDemocrat said:Opps, I saw a comment above yours. Sorry.:lol:
galenrox said:They are regulated similarly to any other industry. They're in an industry that has quite a few more capabilities to screw up the environment than most other industries, and they have been operating under these policies for years, and subsidies aren't there to prop them up, they're there to keep them afloat, and I think that considering they're making record profits, we don't need to give them our tax dollars, since they're already sucking our pockets dry of the money that the government isn't taking.
When you enter any idustry or choose to continue to operate in any industry, you have to accept the realities of that particular industry, and in energy markets there are significant regulations, and you make an economic decision whether this makes the market bad enough that you don't want to be in it. The oil companies entered and remained in the oil industry knowing full well about the regulation. So no, I'm not saying repealing the regulations. I have absolutely no problem with them turning record profits, what I do have problems with is the fact that our government is giving them extra money on top of that. And I simply can't understand why in the hell you wouldn't have a problem with that! Have you and a few of your buddies ever split 8 billion dollars from the government? You know what that means? The government cares more about them than us, and for some reason you seem to like that.
And I'm not sure what your issue with the profit numbers is. Profit is not the same as revenue, just making sure you know. Profit and net income are the same thing, not profit and revenue, which seems to be the assumption that you're working under.
cnredd said:I'm not worried...you'll get around to bashing me....Looks like I just gotta wait my turn
SouthernDemocrat said:Ironically, two of the most heavily regulated industries, Pharmaceuticals and Oil, are also the two most profitable industries.
Kandahar said:But which is the cause and which is the effect? Those industries are not profitable because they are regulated; they are regulated because they are profitable.
There happens to be a large demand for pharmaceuticals and oil if you hadn't noticed. Is it really surprising that the government wants to get a piece of the pie?
I'm not saying that they SHOULDN'T be regulated...but implying that regulation increases profits leads to some very bad conclusions.
SouthernDemocrat said:kudzu
Vile, insidious weed. Only way to be rid of it is to pave over it.
I will join you in this unpopular stance...:2wave:danarhea said:I am not a big fan of either Bush or Clinton, since they seemed to give away money to oil companies whenever they asked for it. Corporate welfare is no different than welfare mothers who wont work. They only take more of the taxpayers' money.
However, politics aside, I will take a position that might make me pretty unpopular around here. The oil companies have a right to charge whatever they want for their products. If we dont like it, we can always use less of those products. Also, if they get too greedy, jumpstarting a hydrogen economy wont seem as bad. In the end, the oil companies, in their shortsightedness and short term greed, are only cutting off their own feet, and thats fine by me. I want hydrogen enough that I wont mind being gouged for a little while longer.
JOHNYJ said:Between his shares in Oil and Pharmaceuticals,President Bush is going to be very rich when he leaves offiece.Than he will become a board member on all those boards of direcors at $ 50K a year he's got it made.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------danarhea said:I am not a big fan of either Bush or Clinton, since they seemed to give away money to oil companies whenever they asked for it. Corporate welfare is no different than welfare mothers who wont work. They only take more of the taxpayers' money.
However, politics aside, I will take a position that might make me pretty unpopular around here. The oil companies have a right to charge whatever they want for their products. If we dont like it, we can always use less of those products. Also, if they get too greedy, jumpstarting a hydrogen economy wont seem as bad. In the end, the oil companies, in their shortsightedness and short term greed, are only cutting off their own feet, and thats fine by me. I want hydrogen enough that I wont mind being gouged for a little while longer.
DeeJayH said:50K a year.
maybe 50 years ago
past presidents will fetch $50-100k for a single speech
though i doubt they will be lining up to pay dubya to speak publicly:doh
they are paid MILIONS to sit on a board
taxpayer said::roll: Welfare "mothers" will have kids! How are they supposed to go to work?
BLAME THE "FATHERS" that DO NOT SUPPORT their kids!!! GEEZZ!!!:doh
-------------------------------------------------------------------------DeeJayH said::2rofll:
Welfare moms will work just like EVERY OTHER WORKING SINGLE MOM
SUCK IT UP AND DO IT
and until they get a decent job stop spreading your legs
and dead beat dads should and are being held accountable
except when the lazy good for nothing welfare mom fails to report him:3oops:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------JOHNYJ said:President Bush will never do anything to rhein in the Oil companies.The only possability is the house.The Republican speaker is from a Northern State . Fuel Oil is sapose to be very high this year.
taxpayerAND BTW: Its called "PRICE GOUGING"!!!:doh OIL (unlike POPCORN) :roll: is something that pertains to our NATIONAL SECURITY and the well being of our country so it SHOULD BE REGULATED!!![/quote said:If the government nationalized the beer industry, they could not make it for under 100 dollars a six pack. Let the market set the price, and keep the government's paws out of the market. If the oil companies charge too much, they will ultimately end up screwing themselves. That is the way the market works. What you should be pissed about is the billions of dollars of our tax money that our government just gives to them.
taxpayer said:BTW: To be fair a few Democrats and others have also used this trick. The grapevine says that the ratio using this trick is:
Republicans- 90%.
Democrats- 8%.
Other- 2%.
taxpayer said:On C-Span-2 today!
American oil companys are having a ball taking advantage of the oil countrys high prices and taking advantage of the aftermats of Katrina!
"Today alone" the American oil companys made $230 MILLION "ABOVE" the alwready record daily profit they are getting!
-----------
Remember, there is NO SHORTAGE of gas just a shortage of Bush and the Republican controlled congress caring if Americans have enough money left to eat after filling their auto and home fuel tanks.
PROVING ONCE AGAIN THATTHEY JUST DO NOT CARE ABOUT WORKING AMERICAN CITIZENS!!! Just the RICH!!!
Hoot said:My argument is not about their profits, but our government giving them an additional 8 billion in tax breaks and subsidies.
I read that last year, the oil companies made profits of about 257 billion, yes, that's BILLION.
What I want to know is, how can the Republicans, and Bush, give these oil companies 8 billion in tax breaks and subsidies?
Galenrox posted >>I personally have no problems with their profits. I think they're doing just fine, so I'd say it's high time we cut off government subsidies of them and let them fly on their own.
Them selling their product at market value is what they're supposed to do, the government giving them our tax dollars is exchange for NOTHING is not.
SouthernDemocrat said:Yeah let’s return to the good old days of massive oil spills and rivers catching on fire. Everyone has environmental regulations that they have to adhere to. Why would we exempt oil companies from them?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?