Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Congressional hearing on "Big Oil" is a bad April Fool's joke [Karl]

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming led the grandstanding at a hearing convened for the purpose of bashing “Big Oil” and executives from the five biggest US oil companies:

On April Fools’ Day, the biggest joke of all is being played on American families by Big Oil…

Even before the hearing, Markey complained:

These companies are defending billions in federal subsidies needed for renewable fuels and clean energy while reaping over a hundred billion dollars in profits in just the last year alone…

In reality, the joke is being played by Markey and his fellow demogogues in Congress.

Regarding the “big profits” side of the ledger, what people might have learned at the hearing is that oil and gas companies earned an average of 8.3 cents per dollar of sales, compared with 7.8 cents per dollar for the Dow Jones average; that the price of a barrel of oil has risen about $40 or 60 percent, while a gallon of regular gasoline has risen about 8 percent; and that price increases are not controlled by oil companies but rather result from relentlessly rising demand, obstructions to accessing domestic oil, shortened capacity, and other external factors.  For that matter, Exxon paid $105 billion in taxes in 2007 — more than two-and-a-half times as much as it made in profit.

And those “billions in federal subsidies” the oil companies are defending?  Most news accounts fail to note that the amount in question is $18 billion in tax breaks over ten years, a miniscule amount compared to the size of the federal budget.  Worse, all but $2.8 billion of these subsidies were for nuclear power, energy-efficient cars and buildings, and renewable fuels research — exactly what Markey wants.  And those tax breaks were less than the tax increases imposed on oil and gas companies in 2005.

Left unanswered is why Markey and his Global Warming Committee would hold a hearing demanding lower gas prices in the first place, given the impact lower prices would have on the burning of fossil fuels.  The answer to that question is that oil companies have lower approval ratings than Congress.  The establishment media will not ask the question, either — most likely for the same reason.

134 Replies to “Congressional hearing on "Big Oil" is a bad April Fool's joke [Karl]”

  1. cranky-d says:

    Well, you’re here again. Finally.

    Anyway, this argument on gas prices always seems to fall on deaf ears. But thanks for all the linkiness.

  2. ugh. we’re not socialist, we just want to tell some companies how to run themselves.

  3. cranky-d says:

    Let’s face it, “Big Oil” is a big target. Good red meat for the masses. Ignore the fact that their profit margins are nowhere near outrageous. Hell, take all the profits. It’s for The Children™.

  4. Dan Collins says:

    Drillers
    Drillers who drill drillers
    Are the luckiest drillers in the world!

  5. Rob Crawford says:

    How much of the price of a gallon of has comes from taxes?

  6. cranky-d says:

    Rob:
    Here is an old list of the taxes from 2002. The average at the time was 42 cents per gallon.

  7. Karl says:

    Thanks, c-d.

  8. A fine scotch says:

    Karl,

    I have no link-FU so if you could fix these, that’d be great.

    See here (.pdf) for a pretty color coded map.

    See here for other fuel tax related info.

    [Voila! -K]

  9. Terrye says:

    I thought a subsidy was a sort of direct payment or something. I read somewhere that American oil companies produce about 13% of the oil, the rest is produced by cartels and foreign producers. If Hugo Chavez and Putin showed up for this ass chewing I missed it.

  10. Ric Locke says:

    Hm. Have I been blocked, or did somebody put in an anti-spam measure?

    Regards,
    Ric

  11. Karl says:

    Ric, it has been my experience that the existing anti-spam plug-in is a bit random.

  12. Ric Locke says:

    Some combination — my login is gone.

    Ah, well. Unmunge the following link:
    www-randomuseless-info/gasprice/gasprice.html

    Worth a look. See ya.

    Regards,
    Ric

  13. Wait, I thought they wanted the government to encourage alternative fuels and research, don’t they? Now it’s a subsidy to do so?

    Exxon alone paid more in taxes last year than half the American public. They made less money than that combined half did too.

    How much of the price of a gallon of has comes from taxes?

    Depending on where you live, up to 63 cents a gallon, including fees and local taxes.

  14. Chairman Me says:

    You think Big Oil is bad. The government took in trillions last year doing next to nothing of value.

  15. lee says:

    Ric, I had that problem and fixed it by using a different email address.

    Karl, welcome back. I can only nod my head in agreement.

    Totally OT, but maybe someone could write a post on this. From OutSide the Wire, about encouraging Hollywood to make movies sympathetic to the war effort (by buying a DVD).

  16. maybe someone could write a post on this.

    Done. Maybe someone here could do it too, bigger audience and all :)

  17. JHoward says:

    The reason oil is high is the same reason commodities, metals, and even food are all high: A plummeting dollar.

    Cause? The Fed.

    Naturally, while just this week the Fed was proposed sweeping new regulatory powers amounting to a Socialist’s most Socialistic Socialism, we should bang on Big Oil.

    Tends to misdirect.

    What’s most perplexing is the almost complete lack of protest from the ostensibly conservative side of the political divide. Slate (linked from PJM right now) just predictably went off half-cocked on the joys of fiscal regulation but we expect that. But where’s the right’s protest against what amounts to government taking up the reigns of business themselves?

    The other day a cohort mentioned that the courts are not at all constitutional, they’re purely commerce courts — they transact business in exchange for power and money. Of course he’s right. It seems we’re wailing down the slippery slope with the throttle stuck wide open, flames coming out the wheelwells.

  18. Merovign says:

    Economic ignorance isn’t too expensive when you’re on the public teat and pay no real price for your flubs.

    When you have to pay the bills, not so much.

    I didn’t watch the show-trial – did anyone stand up to Malarkey and try to shove some facts down the throats of the clowns?

    A little progression if you’ll indulge – the truth is the first victim or war. War is the continuation of politics by other means. The truth is the first victim of politics, and the rest tend to be too small or weak to defend themselves.

    We definitely need court jesters in Congress.

  19. B Moe says:

    For that matter, Exxon paid $105 billion in taxes in 2007 — more than two-and-a-half times as much as it made in profit.

    I have been doing an informal study among businessmen I know, and if you include all taxes, including payroll, generated by a business, every one I have talked to said the government made as much or more as the owners. But the businesses are the greedy ones, the government is looking out for us.

  20. Jeffersonian says:

    I just can’t imagine how much better my life will be when Congress gets its hands on all that swag those greedy oil companies have stashed away.

  21. dicentra says:

    What’s most perplexing is the almost complete lack of protest from the ostensibly conservative side of the political divide.

    It isn’t a mystery if you understand Corporatism: the unholy alliance between Big Biz and Big Gubmint. Congress bangs its pots and pans, the oil companies pretend to be askeered, then they collude to create Ever More Regulations that ensure that both the consumer and small business gets royally screwed.

    It’s not socialism, m’dearies, it’s garden-variety Fascism.

    And yeah, what the Fed has been doing lately is pretty spooky. Is it too early to retreat to Galt’s Gulch?

    “Just drill through the skull of a caribou already!” — Glenn Beck

  22. McGehee says:

    We definitely need court jesters in Congress.

    What, more?

  23. Saul Goode says:

    For April Fools Day d’ya think the NYT actually printed something true for a change?

    Headlines:

    “HILLARY CAUGHT IN LIES” (tee hee)

    “BARACK OBAMA FOUND TO BE A DISHONEST, KNOW-NOTHING EMPTY SUIT” (giggle)

    “MOQTADA AL-SADR AND THE MAHDI ARMY POUNDED BY IRAQI ARMY, FORCED TO SURRENDER” (ha ha ha ha)

  24. daleyrocks says:

    It’s all due to the plummeting dollar.

    Right. Those Paulbots never think about the demand side of the equation because it’s always traceable to the fed’s funny money.

  25. Radish says:

    What kind of profits are made by Big Soda?

  26. lee says:

    You know who’s really packing it away?

    Big Diaper.

  27. RTO Trainer says:

    “I just can’t imagine how much better my life will be when Congress gets its hands on all that swag those greedy oil companies have stashed away.”

    Yeh. I can’t imagine either.

    JHoward, The Fed can have an effect on the value of the dollar in a couple of ways, mostly by changing interest rates, but they can’t control it. Higher interest makes T-bills more attractive, but it’s the market value of the T-bills which float like commodities (like oil) that determine the dollar’s value.

    Interestingly, even though the Fed lowered interest rates, since then the dollar has been gaining, just a few point each day, steadily. Despite the lower rate of return, the US economy is still seen as a good investment value. Clearly the view is that the lower rate is the correct move over the long term.

    I dunno, may I just haven’t been beaten badly enough by the system to distrust it so much.

  28. happyfeet says:

    Ethanol provides energy security. The United States currently imports more than 50 percent of its domestic petroleum consumption – and about 80 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves are in the perennially unstable Middle East. Plus, the planet has only a finite supply of fossil fuels. But ethanol is a home-grown resource made from readily replaceable agricultural feedstocks such as corn.*

    From Karl’s Houston Chronicle link…

    The oil company executives also reiterated their call for opening up areas, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and off the East and West Coasts which are currently out of bounds for oil and gas exploration.

    “Altogether, these areas are estimated to hold 80 billion barrels of recoverable oil and natural gas equivalent — enough to double current U.S. reserves,” said John Lowe, ConocoPhillips’ executive vice president for exploration and production.

    Energy security is a lot a farce I think if what it means is that our own oil has to stay securely in the damn ground. It’s depressing a lot cause McCain thinks oil is icky and gross. This will be the first fag I ever vote for.

  29. happyfeet says:

    I take that back. I voted for Kay Bailey.

  30. happyfeet says:

    But she at least supports drilling in ANWR though.

  31. MikeD says:

    The absentee owner of the largest liquor store in our small town here in SE Colorado recently ran afoul of the state, local city council and the city attorney. Unable to resolve things in a timely fashion, exasperated, and, I would guess, intent on a degree of revenge she engaged an auction company, sold off the inventory for pennies on the dollar, closed the business and is in the process of liquidating the real estate. The city, already suffering economic decline, loses another business and considerable sales tax revenue. While those of us who attended the auction profited, I’m not sure who all loses in such a situation. The local government appears to be the biggest fool,however, and the absentee owner who had no real stake in the community, has the satisfaction of telling the self important to get stuffed, despite, in some manner, probably cutting her nose off to spite her face.

    I have always wondered what imperative (responsibility to stockholders for maximized profit, I assume) keeps an Exxon/Mobil, from simply moving their corporate headquarters to a friendlier location. I’m sure such large multi-national operations have the clout to negotiate very advantageous terms. Halliburton shifted its HQ off to Dubai, if I recall correctly. How has that worked out?

    And think of the satisfaction of telling Rep. Markey and Teddy Kennedy to go fuck themselves.

  32. happyfeet says:

    Hmmm. Actually Kay’s not so bad really. I’m still mad cause she went nuts on Dubai Ports World is all. I really should let that go I think.

  33. happyfeet says:

    MikeD … this here is what you reminded me of… quintessential Democratic economic policy…

    Since the luxury tax came into effect last Sept. 30 for newly ordered boats, nobody has bought a new boat on which the tax would apply! The National Marine Manufacturers’ Association, the industry association that tracks such things, can’t find a single sale in the whole country! Not one! However, the association has been able to document in excess of 100,000 layoffs (blue-collar workers — not fat cats) and numerous boat manufacturers going out of business. All during which not a single dollar of luxury tax has been collected.

  34. happyfeet says:

    And also I forgot for a second I love McCain. Love him more than cupcakes I do. Sorry bout that.

  35. RTO Trainer says:

    Ethanol provides energy security. The United States currently imports more than 50 percent of its domestic petroleum consumption – and about 80 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves are in the perennially unstable Middle East. Plus, the planet has only a finite supply of fossil fuels. But ethanol is a home-grown resource made from readily replaceable agricultural feedstocks such as corn.

    Imports more than 50%. And if we convert the entire US corn crop to Ethanol production that would make up 12% of US gasoline consumption. Converting all relevant crops to Biodiesel would net 6% of diesel needs. So we could make up over half of the imported oil, but we’d have NO corn or soybeans for any other purpose, like feeding livestock. Sugar prices would go up–no corn sweetener. No BocaBurgers either, or Tofu, so you’ve just lost the hippie market to this plan as well.

  36. RTO Trainer says:

    Feet. We can’t tell where you stand anymore.

  37. happyfeet says:

    I know. I’m really grumpy today. I booked next week off.

  38. geoffb says:

    “If Hugo Chavez and Putin showed up for this ass chewing I missed it.”

    Markey loves Chavez. Democrat politicians always love thugs so I suppose he loves Putin as well.

  39. Karl says:

    hf,

    There’s a lot of that going around.

  40. happyfeet says:

    That’s really true, K. And it’s completely unacceptable I think.

  41. Karl says:

    hf,

    Watch it, pal!

    ;-)

  42. happyfeet says:

    I mean a lot for me too. There’s just something suspiciously arbitrary about a lot of teh grumpy I think. But I will share something. I a lot identify with certain often abrasively defiant and fiercely brilliant people what don’t seem particularly defiant of late. And I wonder what they know that I don’t. A little germ of self-doubt, that.

  43. Karl says:

    hf,

    I don’t think it’s a matter of knowing something as much as having a certain perspective. But I identify with the self-doubt about one’s efforts it provokes.

  44. I didn’t watch the show-trial – did anyone stand up to Malarkey and try to shove some facts down the throats of the clowns?

    Special Report played one clip of an Exxon exec being asked about research into alternative energy sources… he said they invested 100 million and the Congresscritter said, “but you had 40 billion in profit” and the exec told him that more money does not equal more progress. I would have added, “like Congress”

  45. happyfeet says:

    I’m just gonna sigh once, and nothing more than a 7 on the Noonan scale. And then tomorrow we can all just be abrasively defiant and fiercely brilliant best we can all by our own selves.

  46. yeah, yeah, cranky grumpy. I hear ya. I think here it’s the allergies.

  47. cranky-d says:

    Did I hear my handle spoken? Well, close anyway.

  48. cranky-d says:

    For me, it’s the weariness of the politics, and a nasty sore throat. I’m drinking hot apple cider and trying to be cheerful. But I’m not trying very hard.

  49. yeah, I caught myself. ;D oh, also, we’re having a discussion here… um, anyone know who Naftali is in the pub?

  50. The Way Lost Dog says:

    “Comment by JHoward on 4/1 @ 6:44 pm #

    The reason oil is high is the same reason commodities, metals, and even food are all high: A plummeting dollar.

    Cause? The Fed.

    Tends to misdirect.

    What’s most perplexing is the almost complete lack of protest from the ostensibly conservative side of the political divide. Slate (linked from PJM right now) just predictably went off half-cocked on the joys of fiscal regulation but we expect that. But where’s the right’s protest against what amounts to government taking up the reigns of business themselves?

    The other day a cohort mentioned that the courts are not at all constitutional, they’re purely commerce courts — they transact business in exchange for power and money. Of course he’s right. It seems we’re wailing down the slippery slope with the throttle stuck wide open, flames coming out the wheelwells.”

    ——————————————————————–

    The Fed is screwing us – with the adminisrtration’s blessing. Jeebus! Where is Reagan when we need him?

    And please, please, please. Don’t forget about this ethanol boondoggle. I mean, who cares if the congress doubles food prices with ethanol mandates, as long as they are addressing the bullshit problem of “climate change”? Our food prices have spiked because of idiots who make more than ten times what the oil companies make on every gallon of gas, and now have pushed most agriculture into growing corn for ethanol. AND WE CAN’T GROW ENOUGH CORN TO FILL THE MANDATE!

    Gee! Why have food prices just about doubled?

    Hey, bozos! The climate CHANGES! ALL BY ITSELF! And we have nothing to do with it, regardless of what government supported idiots MUST say to keep their grants.

    I am a Connecticut Yankee (roughly a Conservative), but I hate to say that I think personal greed is opening the way for the Socialists who wish to control us with facisim. Is $250,000,000 a little excessive for one person to take home in income?

    My father was a big time business guy, and I know he would be rolling in his grave at the compensation that some of these egomaniacs take home, and then spend the droppings on a home theater with a $5,000 clicker.

    I am “laissez-faire”, but some of these people are just clearing the way for all Obamas, now and in the future. If I made $200,000,000 a year, I would actually give half of it back to the people in my company that actually made it for me – instead of sending them home with a net of $400 – $500 dollars a week.

    When I was young (masny years ago), the family had one bread winner, and could live a decent life on that income.

    $500 a week takehome?

    Don’t make me laugh.

    I am an old time American, and believe in the American way, but what is up with ANYONE who thinks they are worth $100,000,000 a year? Does anyonje REALLY need that much money?

    If you make $2,000,000 a year and your average employee makes $500 a week, why would you be surprised that they love Obama and want a change? It’s true. Capitalism is gutting itself…

    Personal greed is going to do this country in….

    And I AM a committed capitalist. I just have an all too human problem with greedy yuppies who don’t give two shits about anybody else…

    AAAAARRRRRGH!!!!!!

  51. happyfeet says:

    Naftali comes round now and again. Something of an odd idiom, but earnest. I think it’s an ESL thing. Has a blog or I think if I remember is also part of a group blog. Not uninteresting if I remember right.

    Here’s the blog. Also.

  52. happyfeet says:

    Here it is … Naftali contributes at Dean Esmay’s. I don’t really know him.

  53. oookay, couldn’t remember them and too lazy to search. thanks, hf.

  54. happyfeet says:

    The top post right now at Dean’s World is kind of on point. About some deranged Swede who blames teh climate change on men.

  55. happyfeet says:

    The debate was taped for a UK documentary called The Greener Gender. God help us.

  56. happyfeet says:

    Oh. Back on naftali. I don’t know these words what she uses. I’m guessing she might could be Israeli.

  57. happyfeet says:

    Oh. Not sure why I jumped to “she” really.

  58. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    – You always seem to favor the wimmins feets. My guess is ,its your unconscious desire to stay as close to the chocolate cupcakes as possible.

  59. MayBee says:

    But I identify with the self-doubt about one’s efforts

    I wish you wouldn’t feel that way, Karl. You should never doubt.

    I can only tell you all that over here in 2-digit land, everything is sweet and painless.

  60. Karl says:

    MayBee,

    Thanks, but you might misunderstand me. I have always said that my purpose in being here is to help keep the place running for Jeff’s return. The stats suggest I’m doing my part traffic-wise, but Jeff’s return remains in limbo. It was probably unrealsitic of me to think that my efforts — on and offsite — would encourage Jeff to come back sooner, but it does dispirit me from time to time.

  61. MayBee says:

    would encourage Jeff to come back sooner, but it does dispirit me from time to time.

    Jeff’s choice is his own. I certainly don’t think his choices are a reflection on your work, or Dan’s or Darleen’s or anything, really, except where his interests lie right now. He has an obsession other than politics for the time being, I think. I’m happy for him about that.
    You are brilliant, and your presence here seems to serve a big purpose.

  62. alppuccino says:

    You are brilliant, and your presence here seems to serve a big purpose.

    And you spell your name with a “K” which gives you that European authoritarian feel. A cheap parlor trick? Maybe. But effective.

    Now…doesn’t that remove all doubt?

  63. Rusty says:

    #17
    I thinksupply and demand aerea major component as well.I knowI’ve harped on this before, but there hasn’t been a new refinery in this countrysince 1975.The ones we have are working at maximum output.Whenone shuts down for one reason or another we see a spike in oilprices.The lack of throughput can also be placed at the feet of our government.Our silly environmental policies have robbed us of our abilitiy to abapt as the market changes.

  64. datadave says:

    Drillers
    Drillers who drill drillers
    Are the luckiest drillers in the world!

    that’s funny, keep singing.

    Independent Truckers. Remember Chile and Pinochet and the CIA brought down Chile with the “Independent Truckers”. They’re mad and they don’t care what Oil Company syncophant’s say on some webblog. They know they’re getting drilled by Bush/Cheney on down and they could help bring the country down.

    Rustoleum, the Oil Companies have been Closing down oil refineries in order to drive up prices. Don’t blame the environmentalists as Big Oil can build as many as they want in the Houston area as they want. Refineries are expensive, and might impinge on those multi million bonuses that management gives themselves every year. Read up on it and don’t drivel. It’s all about the short term profit .. not the long term (that’s more like Euro-thinking or Asian thinking, but not in the one year plans of US CEOs…they usually only concern themselves in the short term as money is gained quickly and they just leave and retire to an after work life of unending golf, play and entitlement. Check out the major resorts where they ‘retire’. I live in one: New England’s west coast or the Hamptons or someplace like that)

  65. datadave says:

    I am a Connecticut Yankee (roughly a Conservative), but I hate to say that I think personal greed is opening the way for the Socialists who wish to control us with facisim. Is $250,000,000 a little excessive for one person to take home in income?

    what are you? A Commie-pinko or something?

    Stick to the Jeffie narrative!

  66. alppuccino says:

    dave, when you’re doing exterior painting, it’s always best, when switching colors, to get out a new brush, as opposed to licking the existing brush.

  67. […] interesting rebuttal to the pervasive negative attitude towards ‘Big Oil’ by Karl at […]

  68. datadave says:

    btw, the US has the lowest taxes on gasoline of any industrialized nation. So what’s the problem? Maybe it’s the stupidity of relying on Big Oil and GM and Ford to do your thinking. Well thought out tax policies have allowed resource poor Euros and Asians to out think and be more efficient than fat cat American leaders. And American consumers are mainly unthinking slobs…except for the minority of intelligent secular educated ones that might be driving less and in more modest vehicles than a Hummer or a F-350. (although someone like to donate one with taxes, and fees paid I might consider one….for free!)

    oh, the question about what do you get for your Govt. dollar: a hundred years in Iraq and Afghanistan. So you got what you wanted.

  69. datadave says:

    still cold for exterior painting… and I like to get such instantaneous results here.

    I am waiting for a little pastel here….but it’s always bold reactionary Black and White here mostly. hf is being down in the dumps for some reason reveberating the same old, same old fascist bilge. Get out of the Cubical! HF! At least you’re funny.

  70. […] of Big Oil (they don’t cry-ay-ay), Obamessiah has made claims that he doesn’t accept money from […]

  71. Slartibartfast says:

    the US has the lowest taxes on gasoline of any industrialized nation. So what’s the problem?

    Taxes are actually a side issue. If the issue is oil company profitability, taxes are appropriate only for scaling purposes, to show that the government is making far more off of oil than the oil companies are. EGREGIOUS OIL PROFITEERS!!!!!

    If we look overseas, we see Royal Dutch Shell, which last year made about $32 billion on income of $355 billion, for a profit of 9%. If you account for taxes, it’s more like five and a half percent. Compare like to like, Shell to Exxon, and you’ll find not much difference.

    Obviously, though, the problem is we’re not taxing them enough.

  72. McGehee says:

    I love McCain. Love him more than cupcakes I do.

    Well, he is sugar-free and low-carb.

    Gluten-free, I don’t know…

  73. N. O'Brain says:

    “#

    Comment by alppuccino on 4/2 @ 6:08 am #

    dave, when you’re doing exterior painting, it’s always best, when switching colors, to get out a new brush, as opposed to licking the existing brush.”

    Especially when you’re using lead based paint.

  74. McGehee says:

    still cold for exterior painting

    Well, that explains it. When painting indoors you have to be sure of your ventilation.

    Fart occasionally. Just not here please.

  75. datadave says:

    “In addition, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the tax changes in the 2005 energy bill produced a net tax increase for the oil and gas companies, as we’ve reported time and time and time again. They did get some breaks, but they had more taken away.”

    from karl’s link: just maybe when the oil and gas was hiked to the current levels that the taxes went up simply because the amount of profit went up even more?

    Big Oil is probably more a symbol of the overall problem that most middle class Americans are feeling pinched esp. during the Bush decade. ..incomes aren’t going up as fast as costs. Simple as that. Also, the nature of corporate governance is that boards of directors are shared across the spectrum of higher management and the current sycophantic govt does whatever the CEOs want. Oil shares a symbiotic relationship with pipeline companies, automobile manufacturers, geo-consulting and mining companies, and esp. large trucking companies and retailers (they buy fuel in bulk) so focusing on the narrow range of profits however large that oil gets is just a small part of the picture. Probably manipulation will attempt to lower prices before the election….just to prevent too much collateral damage. (it happened in ’06 but not enough to save many Repubs_).

  76. datadave says:

    why, not mcGeehee? actually I spend a lot of time in kitchens of late. farting isn’t noticed if you cook well.

  77. Slartibartfast says:

    just maybe when the oil and gas was hiked to the current levels that the taxes went up simply because the amount of profit went up even more

    Staggering, overwhelming innumeracy.

    most middle class Americans are feeling pinched esp. during the Bush decade. ..incomes aren’t going up as fast as costs

    Staggering, overwhelming innumeracy, even if shared by all of middle class America. Tax gasoline more, and costs go up even more. Eventually, if you tax it enough, profits might go down a few tenths of a percentage point, and then you’ll have won a victory for middle-class America! You’ll be a HERO, dave! By then, though, a head of broccoli will cost ten bucks.

  78. N. O'Brain says:

    “Big Oil is probably more a symbol of the overall problem that most middle class Americans are feeling pinched esp. during the Bush decade. ..”

    Yes, damn them, BIG EEEEEEEVIL OIL, for providing a product that runs our economy while making a not so overwhelming return on investment!

  79. datadave says:

    yeah, u don’t get the ‘nuance’. We’ve been profligate in energy consumption due to lower tax rates on fuel. Other countries didn’t want to encourage consumption but we have. Then when supply and demand pushes up fuel costs we become more vulnerable.

    to be fair, we do have a disadvantage as a country in that we’re very big in geographic range requiring longer distances to travel, so our lower taxes for fuel have reasonable basis to keep us wandering about enjoying the topography… (I am Guilty, Guilty but then I drive an old beater that gets better mileage than what Detroit was foisting on us of late..)

    We also have a ‘cheap food’ policy encourageing low grade quality processed foods that make that broccoli more expensive and cornstarch crap cheaper too…but that’d be too much nuance for PW. Gotta stick to the Narrative.

  80. Slartibartfast says:

    By dave’s logic, here, tax cuts might be just the thing to ease the pinched middle class. We’ll make a Republican out of you in no time, at this rate.

  81. Slartibartfast says:

    I think dave really does want it all, even if he doesn’t have a place to put it. He wants lower costs, higher taxes and lower profits all at the same time.

    I’m anxious to hear his detailed plan for achieving this, and if he has any ideas about how the Pythagorean Theorem might be actually wrong, as applied to Euclidean geometry.

  82. datadave says:

    slart I don’t get what innumerancy u’re talking about: e.g. lower taxes 5 percent and profits go up 25 or 30 percent… tax revenues go up.

    but ‘wingers are so stupid to believe that the 5 per cent decrease in tax rate caused the profit to go up and thus raised tax revenues…it’s just that the corporate heads are greedy and know they can get away with a compliant govt. letting them profit from a monopoly.

  83. datadave says:

    slart.. you’re spouting Obama’s message..lower taxes on the middle class and raise them on the Monopoly class. Got it. Been saying that for a long time.

  84. N. O'Brain says:

    “Comment by datadave on 4/2 @ 7:00 am #

    yeah, u don’t get the ‘nuance’. We’ve been profligate in energy consumption due to lower tax rates on fuel.”

    Your ignorance is staggering.

    “but ‘wingers are so stupid to believe that the 5 per cent decrease in tax rate caused the profit to go up and thus raised tax revenues…it’s just that the corporate heads are greedy and know they can get away with a compliant govt. letting them profit from a monopoly.”

    Did you pop up on Earth after traveling here through a wormhole from the Stupid Universe?

  85. Slartibartfast says:

    I don’t get what innumerancy u’re talking about

    Of course; if you did, you’d stop. Hopefully. Assuming you’re not just trolling.

    What you’ve missed out on, evidently, is that the driving factor here is not taxes or profit, but materials and production cost. Cost of crude goes up, and price at the pump goes up. As a result, profit also goes up, and tax goes up, because the rates of profit and taxation are, approximately, constant. You’re trying to establish a cause-and-effect relationship without first identifying the cause.

  86. N. O'Brain says:

    “…raise them on the Monopoly class.”

    Sweet jeebus on a pogo stick, it gets worse and worse.

  87. datadave says:

    remove the top limit on Social Security taxation…make it into a true govt. insurance program…not a piggy bank for the elites to fund wars etc. (hell, I’d thought I’d never be a flat-taxer..but it’s regressive…worst than flat.)

    just do that for me and I’ll vote for McCain if he’d say that ..(that’ll be the day..)

  88. Slartibartfast says:

    slart.. you’re spouting Obama’s message..lower taxes on the middle class and raise them on the Monopoly class. Got it. Been saying that for a long time.

    Good luck doing that at the pump.

  89. N. O'Brain says:

    You know, I think I’m gonna go out and buy me a monocle.

    Just to bother dd.

  90. datadave says:

    Sweet jeebus on a pogo stick, it gets worse and worse.

    I am glad to entertain you. alaska is always an escape…oh that’s McGheehee….

  91. datadave says:

    Clinger!!! there’s always toilet paper.

  92. datadave says:

    actually I don’t mind paying 4 bucks a gallon,,, it’s 5 buck’s I am worried about.

  93. N. O'Brain says:

    “Comment by datadave on 4/2 @ 7:10 am #

    remove the top limit on Social Security taxation…make it into a true govt. insurance program…”

    Well, there may be hope yet.

    dd, are you saying that you understand that Social Security is nothing but a great honkin’ Ponzi scheme?

    Oh, wait.

    He just wants to take MORE money and pour it into a dying system.

    Never mind.

  94. N. O'Brain says:

    “Comment by datadave on 4/2 @ 7:11 am #

    Sweet jeebus on a pogo stick, it gets worse and worse.

    I am glad to entertain you.”

    Not so much entertainment as awe at the depths of your ignorance.

    And to think you’re allowed to vote.

  95. N. O'Brain says:

    Oh, and dd?

    You do realize, do you not, that governments make more money from a gallon of gas than the producer does, do you not?

    Is that unconscionable? Is that gouging? Is that, dare I say it, monopolistic?

  96. Slartibartfast says:

    remove the top limit on Social Security taxation…make it into a true govt. insurance program…not a piggy bank for the elites to fund wars etc.

    Ok, let’s do that. What does it accomplish? Nothing, other than to convert SS into something more resembling the retirement program it was envisioned as being. But at least Bill Gates can rest easy that his SS distributions will now be uncapped.

    Wait. You probably didn’t intend that to happen, but since distributions are currently a function of collections, that’s what will, in fact, happen. In any event, uncapping SS collections will accomplish bupkus. If you uncap collections and somehow manage to keep distributions capped, you’ve converted SS into an entitlement program, and you’ve made a teensy dent in the SS balance problem.

    This is what’s annoying about you, dave: you want to make policy decisions, but you haven’t even made a scratch on the body of knowledge you need in order to be able to vote intelligently. Me, I’ve made that scratch, but I don’t presume to tell other people what they should be doing.

  97. Slartibartfast says:

    A scratch, really. Not even a flesh wound.

  98. datadave says:

    “You’re trying to establish a cause-and-effect relationship without first identifying the cause.”

    that’s what I said…beJEssum. When I hear some Republican keep bringing up Kennedy’s tax cuts for helping a boom in the 60s…i keep shaking my head and saying what a tool. (Kennedy’s administration lasted how long?) And to use a Dem. Pres. is just a ploy. What about Clinton’s tax raises that led to the longest recessionless period of growth (while Reagan’s tax cuts included 3 recessions). And Bush’s huge tax cut that gave us pre-Depression inequality and a jobless recovery and lower wages During a recovery?

    I’d like to hear facts and cause and effect but mostly I hear propaganda. We’re fading fast as a leader of nations when little Finland tops us in every factor by having higher taxes, better business climate (a lower corporate tax…if that corporation is in fact not some tool for a monopolist) and better over all living standards.. as our Socialist and Honest Senator has said.

    but PWers in general seem to be extolling Papa Doc principals: no taxes on the elite, all upon the little people. (the monopoly class make all their taxes back in spades…with a tool of govt. looking out for their interests.)

  99. datadave says:

    slart…removing the social security limit on income wouldn’t increase tax revenues?

    and educate me… if SS an entitlement program when every propagandist of the Right considers SS as part of the Entitlement explosion (knowing it’s in the Black and already making big money for the govt….due to Reagan’s (and Monghaghan’s sp?) big Tax increase on working people…)

    but I’ll agree there is the problem of Unearned income not getting taxes at all in that regard.

  100. Slartibartfast says:

    What about Clinton’s tax raises that led to the longest recessionless period of growth (while Reagan’s tax cuts included 3 recessions). And Bush’s huge tax cut that gave us pre-Depression inequality and a jobless recovery and lower wages During a recovery?

    Dave’s cart, evidently, supplies the motive force for his horse.

    no taxes on the elite, all upon the little people

    This is far enough out that I’m tempted to abandon reading-comprehension issues as an explanation in favor of insanity. Dave, I recommend seeing clinical psychologist, stat.

  101. Slartibartfast says:

    slart…removing the social security limit on income wouldn’t increase tax revenues?

    I didn’t say that. I said it wouldn’t improve the balance between SS revenues and SS outlays, because SS outlays are geared to SS revenues.

    and educate me… if SS an entitlement program when every propagandist of the Right considers SS as part of the Entitlement explosion (knowing it’s in the Black and already making big money for the govt….due to Reagan’s (and Monghaghan’s sp?) big Tax increase on working people…)

    Was there a question in there, somewhere?

    I’m going to assume that you’re asking why the objection to SS becoming an entitlement program, when some unspecified conservative who is not me is already saying it is. My response is: I don’t have to support the arguments of people who are not me.

    More generally, though: the problem with overt conversion of SS into an entitlement program isn’t so much that Republicans won’t support it, as that Democrats won’t support it. You might support it, dave, but your congresscritter won’t. Democrats and Republicans may have completely different reasons for opposing such a move, but oppose it they will. It’s not an option.

    And of course it’s completely the right thing to do to attempt some honest dialogue on social security, even after the bidirectional bombardment of ridicule commences. It’d help, though, if our opponents would stop making up diabolical, insidious and covert reasons that we hold the positions we do and attempt to replace the stated reasons with the invented ones.

  102. N. O'Brain says:

    “Comment by datadave on 4/2 @ 7:28 am #

    “You’re trying to establish a cause-and-effect relationship without first identifying the cause.”

    that’s what I said…beJEssum. When I hear some Republican keep bringing up Kennedy’s tax cuts for helping a boom in the 60s…i keep shaking my head and saying what a tool.”

    Knowledge is hard.

    Ignorance is a gift that just keeps on giving.

  103. datadave says:

    Nanny O brian, slart’s willing to debate.

    Well, give me example’s of conservative models that you’d prefer? Franco’s Spain? China? (they eliminated the barefoot doctors and force people to pay for all health care…now), Pakistan? Philippines?, South Africa (actually our closest model of govt and social welfare systems btw)?

    I’ll take progressive euro or asian models: Scandinavians, EU, Taiwan, Singapore (both conservative Asians..that actually have more progressive social systems than we do), even Britain and Canada (our closest compatables other than S.Africa) have much more progressive policies.

    care to argue or just berate? It’s more fun cussn’ I know. Or was picking on the nerd in HS your apex of life?

  104. N. O'Brain says:

    Social Security?

    I’d privatize it. Just like the Federal employee’s program.

    You know, those “public servants” who opted out of the system?

  105. N. O'Brain says:

    “care to argue or just berate?”

    How do you argue with someone as ignorant as you are?

  106. datadave says:

    entitlement (plural entitlements)

    1. the right to have something
    2. something that one is entitled to (or believes that one is entitled to)
    3. (politics) government payments that are guaranteed to a segment of the population, such as the Pell Grant and social security in the US.
    4. As good as a process can get without capital investment. Alt. A perceived “right to demand.” Opposite of a gift, in that it is without appreciation. A “you owe me” obligation for which, I owe nothing in return.

  107. datadave says:

    u have nothing to offer O’Nanny. but a sense of entitlement.

  108. datadave says:

    so slart, social security has always been an ‘entitlement’ program. It’s a lot of work educating tools.

    “I’d privatize it. Just like the Federal employee’s program.”….oh my, that’s a good one. Wall street doesn’t run that, govt. does…but Bush wanted Wall Street to run the Social Security program which would have been gouged and fleeced like the 401 Ks are now….the Fed’s also have a generous Cola dictated by Law..i.e. Govt….not 401 Ks btw…)

  109. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    I’ll take progressive euro or asian models

    Planes are leaving every few hours from every major airport, dave.

    See ya!

  110. datadave says:

    yeah, right. Most Americans are too poor to move. Even Mexicans can come up with 2 K to pay a coyote to move here and half of America couldn’t afford a coyote. But our Propaganda is so pervasive that Mexicans pay to come here…as (Mexico is practically our colony and supplier of cheap labor since Nafta ruined their agricultural small scale farms, at least McCain and the others know that hidden narrative that allows chamber of commerce type to not be penalized for hiring illegals.) And Americans have a hard time with foreign languages…like Finnish….yeah, thx again. We’re kind of stuck!

    (u coulda at least educated us on Govt. retirement policies)

  111. N. O'Brain says:

    “#Comment by datadave on 4/2 @ 7:58 am #

    u have nothing to offer O’Nanny. but a sense of entitlement.”

    u have nothing but a bottomless well of ignorance.

    and sorreee, but i akctually work for what i got.

    Has anyone ever noticed how lame reactionary leftist insults are?

    I mean “O’Nanny”?!?!?!

    Now if I were to insult dd, it’d be something on the order of “dave, you ignorant dicksneeze. You’re a loonwaffle with delusions of gender. Fuck you, the horse you rode in on and all the hussars trotting along behind.”

    See? Creative, yet gentle.

  112. N. O'Brain says:

    “yeah, right. Most Americans are too poor to move.”

    Ah. dd is a stasisist.

    That explains a lot.

  113. N. O'Brain says:

    Ooo, here’s a good one:

    “dd, you have the brain of a four year old child, and I’ll bet the child was glad to be rid of it.”

  114. McGehee says:

    Even Mexicans can come up with 2 K to pay a coyote to move here and half of America couldn’t afford a coyote.

    He may have the brain of a four-year-old child, but it hasn’t accumulated any wear and tear since he got it.

  115. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    yeah, right. Most Americans are too poor to move.

    Bullshit.

    Most of us are descended from people who came here in steerage or even sold their indentures.

    One way ticket from O’Hare to Stockholm: $530

    Number of hours of labor to purchase ticket at minimum wage: 80.

    You don’t move to EuroSocialist Land because, on a fundamental level, you don’t even believe your own bullshit.

    Don’t expect anyone else to believe it.

  116. datadave says:

    stasisist look it up.. .made up definition.

    dude, u’re pretty silly looking up merely plane tickets. I’d need a pretty high powered immigration lawyer to get me into that heaven. And my extra 1500 would buy me a weekend at the local Motel 6 if customs even let me in there. I moved ‘cross country with only 1500 and that was a real test starting over. Believe your own propaganda, ’cause that’s what it is…bet your risky move was buying a time-share or something…always take the easy road,,, that’s Republicanism for ya.

  117. Slartibartfast says:

    Well, give me example’s of conservative models that you’d prefer?

    Eh? SS is fairly anathema to conservatives, so I think the preferred model would be “no model”. In any event, you’re supplying me with more than enough unworkable ideas to keep me busy.

  118. Rob Crawford says:

    Dave, if you’re really interested in living under the socialist model, you don’t need a high-priced immigration attorney. Remember the Mexicans you were discussing earlier? How many of them used high-priced immigration lawyers?

    Just get a tourist visa and overstay.

  119. datadave says:

    Rob, I don’t think the Sweds nor Finns have a ‘wink and nod’ system of supplying California Big Ag businesses with cheap labor. This ‘wink and nod’ system for keeping labor cheap and plentiful is from Pres. Bush and on down.

  120. Slartibartfast says:

    Oh, I completely agree that we need to tighten up our immigration controls to at least Swedish standards. But I’m a racist for thinking that, probably.

  121. Rob Crawford says:

    Rob, I don’t think the Sweds nor Finns have a ‘wink and nod’ system of supplying California Big Ag businesses with cheap labor.

    Well, duh. California’s not part of Sweden or Finland.

    They have their own local employers to keep supplied with cheap labor. Look it up — they’ve got immigration problems approaching ours, though primarily from North Africa and Turkey.

  122. Goofy leftists like datadave are good for hits and extending comment sections, but really… they add almost nothing to a blog, in the end.

  123. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    . I moved ‘cross country with only 1500 and that was a real test starting over.

    Yeah, way worse than selling yourself as an indentured servant, I’m sure.

    As noted before, you don’t even believe your own bullshit.

    Sorry.

  124. Devil's Advocate says:

    How do you explain the $400 million dollar severance package that the former CEO of Exxon received? How do you justify that? How can the oil companies justify their profits if they are paying severance packages of $400 million? How can they justify the severance?!!! Come on! They are scum bags that are raping the public for profit!

  125. Swen Swenson says:

    The reason oil is high is the same reason commodities, metals, and even food are all high: A plummeting dollar.

    Weellll, yes and no. Certainly the plummeting dollar isn’t helping, but it’s mostly commodity supply and demand. We’ve got 1.3 billion Chinese and 600 million Indians who are beginning to emerge from abject poverty. They’re all buying Tatas and Buicks, and refrigerators and TVs, and even a little food. The demand for energy and other commodities is increasing faster than the supply, driving up the prices. (Note that the price of gas went up way before the value of the dollar started down.)

    The best solution I can see is to rush those carbon cap and trade deals through so we can pay all those third world dictators to keep their people poor and backward!

  126. Rob Crawford says:

    They are scum bags that are raping the public for profit!

    If so, then the government’s an even bigger pack of scumbags raping the public for profit, as the government take per gallon is higher than the producer’s.

  127. JD - TW says:

    How do you explain the $400 million dollar severance package that the former CEO of Exxon received? How do you justify that? How can the oil companies justify their profits if they are paying severance packages of $400 million? How can they justify the severance?!!! Come on! They are scum bags that are raping the public for profit!

    FUCKING WAR PROFITEERS RAPING THE PUBIC AND NOT EVEN USING K-Y (THE WARMING KIND) AND HEARTLESS REPUGLIKKAN BASTAGES JUST THINK OF ALL OF THE POOR PEOPLE YOU COULD HAVE SAVED IN SUDAN BUT THEN YOU WOULD NOT GIVE THEM CONDOMS OR ABORTIONS SO MAYBE IT IS BETTER THAT YOU PAY OUT BLOOD MONEY TO OIL EXECS

  128. Slartibartfast says:

    THE WARMING KIND

    *snicker*

  129. […] Congressional hearing on “Big Oil” is a bad April Fool's joke [Karl] […]

  130. News says:

    […] Congressional hearing on “Big Oil” is a bad April Fool's joke [Karl] […]

  131. […] Congressional hearing on “Big Oil” is a bad April Fool's joke [Karl] […]

  132. […] Congressional hearing on “Big Oil” is a bad April Fool's joke [Karl] […]

  133. […] Congressional hearing on “Big Oil” is a bad April Fool's joke [Karl] […]

  134. […] Congressional hearing on “Big Oil” is a bad April Fool's joke [Karl] […]

Comments are closed.