Senate passes bill to open up offshore drilling (limited)

[zendari]

Originally posted by: ayabe
I have no problem with the oil companies making money, it's the tax breaks and subsidies that kill me. If they are so in the black, why do we have to give them our tax money to enable them to make more money.

We're getting hit twice and that's f'ed.

Many of these tax breaks date back to the Clinton administration.

 

[Puffnstuff]

It will mean nothing to the average citizen as nothing will change for them. What will change is the amount of profit big oil will make by selling more oil out onto the world market. This is a serious mistake and there will be a price to be paid for it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: ayabe
I have no problem with the oil companies making money, it's the tax breaks and subsidies that kill me. If they are so in the black, why do we have to give them our tax money to enable them to make more money.

We're getting hit twice and that's f'ed.

Many of these tax breaks date back to the Clinton administration.

Give it a rest. Were you even born then???

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: ayabe
I have no problem with the oil companies making money, it's the tax breaks and subsidies that kill me. If they are so in the black, why do we have to give them our tax money to enable them to make more money.

We're getting hit twice and that's f'ed.

Many of these tax breaks date back to the Clinton administration.

It took you untill the 2nd page to find a way to blame it on Clinton?

You are starting to slip.

 

[LordMorpheus]

Originally posted by: MIDIman
I don't understand why everyone bashes the idea of opening new refineries. Last time I checked, we haven't opened a new one in the US for decades and yet our capacity to drill has practically maxed out. We have tons of oil in the US and if you want prices to lower, either stop using it yourself or let's open up some new ones here.

No doubt that the idea of conservation or alternate sources is a good one - but I drive a shittly Toyota Corolla that gets damn good mileage, and I plan on getting a hybrid as my next car. Can everyone else here spouting conservation or the "uselessness" of this bill say the same?

There haven't been any new refineries, but if you look at the capacity in BBL/day, you will see that it has gone way way up. Refineries expand and become more efficient. I know the place I work at now can handle much more crude than it could have 15 years ago, and we've got a major expansion coming up in 2012.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: ayabe
I have no problem with the oil companies making money, it's the tax breaks and subsidies that kill me. If they are so in the black, why do we have to give them our tax money to enable them to make more money.

We're getting hit twice and that's f'ed.

Many of these tax breaks date back to the Clinton administration.

Give it a rest. Were you even born then???

No, I am a very advanced 5.5 year old.

Clinton's policy:

* Forty-one companies actually paid less than zero in federal income taxes in at least one year from 1996 to 1998. In those tax-free years, the 41 companies reported a total of $25.8 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But rather than paying $9 billion in federal income taxes at the 35 percent rate, these companies enjoyed so many excess tax breaks that they received $3.2 billion in rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury. Just one company, Texaco, reported $3.4 billion in U.S. profits and $304 million in tax rebates over the three years.
* In 1998, twenty-four corporations got tax rebates. These 24 companies--almost one out of ten of the companies in the study--reported U.S. profits before taxes in 1998 of $12.0 billion, yet received tax rebates totaling $1.3 billion. The list of big-name companies getting tax rebates in 1998 included, among others, Texaco, Chevron, CSX, Pepsico, Pfizer, J.P. Morgan, Goodyear, Enron, General Motors, Phillips Petroleum and Northrop Grumman.
* A hundred and thirty-three of the 250 companies paid effective tax rates of less than half the 35 percent rate in at least one of the three years (and many did it more than once). In the years that these 133 corporations paid such low tax rates, they paid a mere 8.5 percent of their $209 billion in U.S. profits in federal income taxes.
* Over the 1996-98 period, petroleum was the lowest-taxed industry in America, with an effective tax rate of only 12.3 percent. In 1998, the tax rate on the 12 big oil companies in the study fell to only 5.7 percent. Only one industry, publishing, paid an effective tax rate of more than 30 percent.


Damn that corporatist oil crony Texas Governor!

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: ayabe
I have no problem with the oil companies making money, it's the tax breaks and subsidies that kill me. If they are so in the black, why do we have to give them our tax money to enable them to make more money.

We're getting hit twice and that's f'ed.

Many of these tax breaks date back to the Clinton administration.

Give it a rest. Were you even born then???

No, I am a very advanced 5.5 year old.

Clinton's policy:

* Forty-one companies actually paid less than zero in federal income taxes in at least one year from 1996 to 1998. In those tax-free years, the 41 companies reported a total of $25.8 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But rather than paying $9 billion in federal income taxes at the 35 percent rate, these companies enjoyed so many excess tax breaks that they received $3.2 billion in rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury. Just one company, Texaco, reported $3.4 billion in U.S. profits and $304 million in tax rebates over the three years.
* In 1998, twenty-four corporations got tax rebates. These 24 companies--almost one out of ten of the companies in the study--reported U.S. profits before taxes in 1998 of $12.0 billion, yet received tax rebates totaling $1.3 billion. The list of big-name companies getting tax rebates in 1998 included, among others, Texaco, Chevron, CSX, Pepsico, Pfizer, J.P. Morgan, Goodyear, Enron, General Motors, Phillips Petroleum and Northrop Grumman.
* A hundred and thirty-three of the 250 companies paid effective tax rates of less than half the 35 percent rate in at least one of the three years (and many did it more than once). In the years that these 133 corporations paid such low tax rates, they paid a mere 8.5 percent of their $209 billion in U.S. profits in federal income taxes.
* Over the 1996-98 period, petroleum was the lowest-taxed industry in America, with an effective tax rate of only 12.3 percent. In 1998, the tax rate on the 12 big oil companies in the study fell to only 5.7 percent. Only one industry, publishing, paid an effective tax rate of more than 30 percent.


Damn that corporatist oil crony Texas Governor!

You should watch this

A lot of the shelters that essentially made it possible for these companies to receive rebates rather than pay taxes have been closed, but more and more keep showing up

 

[Genx87]

This is good news, we cant continue to talk about energy independence while closing off our natural resources making us rely on foreign energy sources.

The simple fact is if they did stuff like this 30 years ago instead of locking these lands into federal wildlife reserves. It is a good chance our energy import rate would be drastically lower than it is now, at what, nearly 70%?

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is good news, we cant continue to talk about energy independence while closing off our natural resources making us rely on foreign energy sources.

Especially if that natural resource is the creativity, and innovation of our people.

We don't need to find more oil.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is good news, we cant continue to talk about energy independence while closing off our natural resources making us rely on foreign energy sources.

The simple fact is if they did stuff like this 30 years ago instead of locking these lands into federal wildlife reserves. It is a good chance our energy import rate would be drastically lower than it is now, at what, nearly 70%?

You do realize the talk about energy independence is nearly pure poo.

If 30 years ago we decided that average US fuel efficiency for cars should rise from 20.7mpg to 30-35mpg . . . it's guaranteed our energy import rate would be far lower than it is now. One of the worst things to ever happen for energy independence in America was the election of Ronald Reagan.

I return to my prior question . . . how come we can't just preserve those energy resources for future generations of Americans? It's bad enough we are spending money they haven't made yet . . . do we have to take all available natural resources as well?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: ayabe
I have no problem with the oil companies making money, it's the tax breaks and subsidies that kill me. If they are so in the black, why do we have to give them our tax money to enable them to make more money.

We're getting hit twice and that's f'ed.

Many of these tax breaks date back to the Clinton administration.

Give it a rest. Were you even born then???

No, I am a very advanced 5.5 year old.

Clinton's policy:

* Forty-one companies actually paid less than zero in federal income taxes in at least one year from 1996 to 1998. In those tax-free years, the 41 companies reported a total of $25.8 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But rather than paying $9 billion in federal income taxes at the 35 percent rate, these companies enjoyed so many excess tax breaks that they received $3.2 billion in rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury. Just one company, Texaco, reported $3.4 billion in U.S. profits and $304 million in tax rebates over the three years.
* In 1998, twenty-four corporations got tax rebates. These 24 companies--almost one out of ten of the companies in the study--reported U.S. profits before taxes in 1998 of $12.0 billion, yet received tax rebates totaling $1.3 billion. The list of big-name companies getting tax rebates in 1998 included, among others, Texaco, Chevron, CSX, Pepsico, Pfizer, J.P. Morgan, Goodyear, Enron, General Motors, Phillips Petroleum and Northrop Grumman.
* A hundred and thirty-three of the 250 companies paid effective tax rates of less than half the 35 percent rate in at least one of the three years (and many did it more than once). In the years that these 133 corporations paid such low tax rates, they paid a mere 8.5 percent of their $209 billion in U.S. profits in federal income taxes.
* Over the 1996-98 period, petroleum was the lowest-taxed industry in America, with an effective tax rate of only 12.3 percent. In 1998, the tax rate on the 12 big oil companies in the study fell to only 5.7 percent. Only one industry, publishing, paid an effective tax rate of more than 30 percent.


Damn that corporatist oil crony Texas Governor!

You should watch this

A lot of the shelters that essentially made it possible for these companies to receive rebates rather than pay taxes have been closed, but more and more keep showing up

I will when I get home. Not suprising, as congress continues to pile on more and more taxes.

 

[Kwaipie]

Originally posted by: zendari

I will when I get home. Not suprising, as congress continues to pile on more and more taxes.

If only our form of government had a system of checks and balances. If only the President could stop congress from this out of control tax and spend policy. If only our government wasn't completely controlled by a single party, then you'd see some real progress!

 

[zendari]

If only we had a president more interested in making sure Texaco actually pays a positive amount in tax dollars rather than getting a blowjob.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: zendari
If only we had a president more interested in making sure Texaco actually pays a positive amount in tax dollars rather than getting a blowjob.

Well W isn't making any changes, he's actually handing out more of your tax money to energy companies.


Not to mention:

My pet goat was being read while Americans citizens were dying.

Playing a guitar while New Orleans drowned.


It's high time you start taking your boy to task instead of talking about Clinton.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is good news, we cant continue to talk about energy independence while closing off our natural resources making us rely on foreign energy sources.

The simple fact is if they did stuff like this 30 years ago instead of locking these lands into federal wildlife reserves. It is a good chance our energy import rate would be drastically lower than it is now, at what, nearly 70%?

You do realize the talk about energy independence is nearly pure poo.

If 30 years ago we decided that average US fuel efficiency for cars should rise from 20.7mpg to 30-35mpg . . . it's guaranteed our energy import rate would be far lower than it is now. One of the worst things to ever happen for energy independence in America was the election of Ronald Reagan.

I return to my prior question . . . how come we can't just preserve those energy resources for future generations of Americans? It's bad enough we are spending money they haven't made yet . . . do we have to take all available natural resources as well?

Your type said the same thing 30 years ago after the last energy crisis. Where did that get us?

Being completely energy free is a pipedream like one noted in this thread. But pushing forward with measures aimed at reducing our dependence is good. Simply sticking our head in the sand and giving up wont get it done. Our economy is expanding, it will continue to expand, you can expect our energy needs to continue to rise with our expansion.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

*cough*ANWR*cough*

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is good news, we cant continue to talk about energy independence while closing off our natural resources making us rely on foreign energy sources.

The simple fact is if they did stuff like this 30 years ago instead of locking these lands into federal wildlife reserves. It is a good chance our energy import rate would be drastically lower than it is now, at what, nearly 70%?

You do realize the talk about energy independence is nearly pure poo.

If 30 years ago we decided that average US fuel efficiency for cars should rise from 20.7mpg to 30-35mpg . . . it's guaranteed our energy import rate would be far lower than it is now. One of the worst things to ever happen for energy independence in America was the election of Ronald Reagan.

I return to my prior question . . . how come we can't just preserve those energy resources for future generations of Americans? It's bad enough we are spending money they haven't made yet . . . do we have to take all available natural resources as well?

Your type said the same thing 30 years ago after the last energy crisis. Where did that get us?

Being completely energy free is a pipedream like one noted in this thread. But pushing forward with measures aimed at reducing our dependence is good. Simply sticking our head in the sand and giving up wont get it done. Our economy is expanding, it will continue to expand, you can expect our energy needs to continue to rise with our expansion.

Dude are you 12yo? The last energy crisis got us Toyota and Honda. Forgetting the last energy crisis got us the SUV. You do realize the primary reason we got nowhere after the last energy crisis was the tool at 1600PA that said, "we don't need alternatives . . . let's just drill more wells."

There is no magic oil reserve in the US. We've got a little bit in Alaska, a little bit along the Eastern continental shelf, maybe a little bit along the Western continental shelf, and little bit more than that left in the Gulf. We are probably better off when it comes to natural gas but its nothing to write home about. Now coal . . . we've got that out the wazoo . . . unfortunately a lot of it is the skankiest crap known to man. Naturally, Mother Nature put it in West Virginia.

Face facts . . . Mother Nature chose to put much of the world's oil and natural gas . . . someplace else.

The future of our economy and nation is dependent on our ability to do a lot more with either the same amount of energy or even less. Why? Because China and India are planning to get their share. Surprisingly, they have even lower st'ds of decency than the Bush Regime so I doubt Central Asian tyrants or Persian theocrats will be obstacles. Further, the general pinch on supply will drive prices ever higher. These are the forces likely to constrain growth.

The only thing accurate in your post is the notion about being 'energy free.' I assume you mean energy independent. But that has almost nothing to do with our relatively pristine coastlines (except Gulf) and a still wild Alaska. It's as I mentioned before . . . we use a lot but we don't have a lot. The only people sticking their heads in the sand (odd metaphor) are those that don't have the vision to realize the opportunities (and wealth) that will accrue to the nations leading the way for a more efficient (and cleaner) future.

China desperately wants clean coal. Their cities are already choking. Hell, it's so bad a significant portion of CA pollution now comes from across the Pacific. But China will not wait for new technology. They will keep the fires burning. Meantime, they are investing billions in pollution controls for coal, more efficient designs, AND . . . a dramatic expansion in nuclear facilities.

India has many of the same issues, but they have fewer resources (monetary/intellectual) to draw upon.

The simple fact is our nation has squandered billions upon billions of barrels of oil . . . in highly inefficient vehicular transportation. But its not enough to have an average fuel efficiency that hasn't moved in two decades. We have to drive every friggin' where! We have to hang flags out the windows. We can't even be bothered to properly inflate our tires.

Anyway, I'm going to go get into my 280hp sedan (tires inflated to 40psi) and go home (at 30mpg highway - - - 29 with A/C). A car made 5 years ago . . . not in America of course . . . we don't make those kinds of vehicles.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: zendari
If only we had a president more interested in making sure Texaco actually pays a positive amount in tax dollars rather than getting a blowjob.

Based on the performance of your hero I'll take blowjobs everyday Alex.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
If only we had a president more interested in making sure Texaco actually pays a positive amount in tax dollars rather than getting a blowjob.

Based on the performance of your hero I'll take blowjobs everyday Alex.

Blowjobs seem to be coming with tax breaks for corporations.