DEBATE RESIDUE: DEMOCRAT CANDIDATES AGREE ON SOMETHING THAT SOUNDS WORTHLESS
Really now, if somebody can explain to me how an "excess" profits taxes on energy companies is going to either reduce the price of gas or increase the domestic supply, please explain it to me.
It might not be as silly as McCain's gas tax suspension but it sounds pretty unrelated to any goal we oughta have.
Straighten me out, folks
posted by UMRBlog @ 20:05
13 comments
13 Comments:
UMRB
No matter how your day is going, be thankful you aren't the one in charge of doing 416 PC hearings in one day in Texas this morning! Bring back flashbacks from your SA days? What a nightmare!
Also, Cubs blew out Cincy last night, you got that going for you as well! We'll see how today goes.
Being the Hillary historian that you are I need a question answered!
When did Hillary become pro-sportsman?? Did she figure out that demographic was the only thing left within the Democrat party up for grabs?
Last I noticed she co-signed the Kerry gun bill a few years back. Maybe she didn't read the bill she signed, but I did.
Is it pro-sportsman to sign a bill that would have eliminated pistol grip shotguns? Being pro-sportsman that she is, one would assume that she knew that these types of shotguns are very common amongst the wild turkey hunting contingent of that very group.
Also a sportsman would probably know that a bill against shotguns that hold 6 shells would eliminate most of the new shotguns on the market. A 3 1/2 inch 12 guage will hold five 3 1/2 inch shells. How many 2 3/4 inch shells will it hold?
What about the Spring snow goose conservation order that is in place to keep the snow goose population in check from destroying the Canadian tundra? Did Mrs. Sportsman not know that legal sportsman were allowed to have as many shells in thier guns as possible during that order?
Just a few concerns, could you please clarify?
;)
p.s. I also know Obama got an "F" from the NRA.
0939,
This would be an even bigger nightmare under Illinois law. There is little question there would be nearly 300 separate hearings.
Lilly pitched badly today. Walks in front of HRs are really not a good pitching pattern.
TYFCB.
1428,
I'm not going to try to identify her as a the sportsman's friend. Here are two distinctions. Hillary's husband was an upland game hunter and waterfowl hunter when she married him and before.
She's not called gun owners "bitter".
TYFCB
Nobody wants to discuss the relationship of the Excess Profits tax to gas prices.
I guess if nobody gets called gay and nobody's described as a Dumbass, the topic's not interesting.
Sheesh!
The answer is pretty simple: There is no relationship so there's nothing to discuss.
Either way the consumer pays. If the gas tax is suspended and Exxons profits are taxed, Exxon just raises prices. If Exxons profits aren't taxed, road building and maintainance are suspended. Then it is resumed at a higher price due to inflation when the gas tax is resumed. This is just another example of Republican mumbo jumbo. Titilate with the words tax relief, but in reality there is no relief. Just more debt, and in this case crumbling roads. And the economic loss off the jobs that building and repairing roads provided.
I hope this answer was smart enough for you...
The excess profits tax is an idea meant to score political points, nothing more. Nobody with an even elementary grasp of economics can possibly believe it will help anything. If you look at profit margin, oil companies are well in line with and actually below many US companies.
I am not a conspiracy nut, but it would be pretty easy to implement an excess profits tax on the oil companies and then decide that Starbucks, McDonalds and Pepsi, (just to name very few), all have significantly higher profit margins and impose higher taxes on them as well. Maybe Barack and Hillary should get together and decide the maximum mark-up on goods and services. Because, what could possibly go wrong with the government setting the price of a good or service below what the market will bear?
Senor,
In addition to answering my question admirably, you point out the fundamental problem with any EPT: Who gets to decide what constitutes "excess?"
The only thing I can add to what you said is that, should Energy Company's gross profits be diluted, the capital and incentive for exploration and development would be impaired which, arguably, drives the price of available dead dinosaurs up over the next 50 years from what it would otherwise have been.
All of which leads me to one more question: Why do people Cheer when either one of them says that?
O,
This wasn't really intended to be a question about the general taxation of Energy Company profits--I don't think anybody's contending they shouldn't pay the same corporate tax on net profits as TCBY or CVS. The floater in the punch bowl of life was the concept of setting another number...a "too much" number and tax everything over that number at a different, additional rate.
Both of our candidates in this primary support such an EPT and always use it in response to what they are going to do about "rising gas prices".
So, putting infrastructure aside for the moment. The direct question is "Who would an EPT reduce or stop the increase in gas prices?" I cannot think of one way an EPT would lower or stabilize gas prices. I'm not totally opposed to class warfare arguments in politics as long as they have a "public good" fig leaf. This puppy has no fig leaf.
I do not suffer from SPD. I can benefit from the shared wisdom of anyone willing to share it.
TYFCB
Then don't threaten to retire anymore. Like it or not, any of us, UMRBlog is still number one in respect and influence. You have a responsibility.
How about some sort of incentive to get the oil companies to build more refineries thus bring down the "demand" they liek to claim?
Maybe tap into some of the oil in Alaska?
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy our national parks and pristene landscapes as much as anyone, but we have the resources to do this right. It actually wouldn't be hard to find a good compromise on this debate. Let the oil companies drill there. Set up strick guidelines and a system in which they pay double or triple fines for impacts on the environment of those areas. If these guys think they can profit from it, they'll hire the best and the brightest to keep the fines at a minimum.
What about a few more wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Hey if China can find it profitable to drill 13 miles off our coast why can't we?
;)
p.s. Senor, you must not be feeling ok? no profanities?
I think a simple "excess profits" tax is far too facile and thoughtless.
But you do bring up the obvious question... how do you figure out just what "excess profits" are?
In that light, I think that perhaps a more productive thing that the candidates should propose is a thorough investigation into oil company policies to get a handle on what sort of oil of the snake variety they may be peddling.
First of all, yes it's politically motivated, but acceptibly so in my opinion. The reason is that the public are taking a very severe hit on this and it's worsening all the time, not to mention those millions of businesses in transportation, cabs, and on and on that are directly impacted by soaring gas prices.
These things have a ripple effect obviously and the country is going to be hurting pretty badly as a result.
The public therefore needs some sort of insight or explanation, and even more importantly, some sort of sign that the government is supposedly doing something about it on their behalf.
I do believe that there's a pretty high probability that if someone does an effective investigation (literally impossible under this regime) of the actions of energy comapanies and particularly energy brokers similar to Enron that they'd uncover some pretty manipulative and shady dealings.
The bottom line is that the government should and ought to step in to ensure that the oil giants are at least playing the game squarely, and beyond that as a commenter mentioned, they should look into why refinery construction seems to be purposely deferred, etc.
And yes it's the dreaded government control and oversight, but if it's shown that the industry is purposely manipulating the market to elevate the cost of fuel.... perhaps it's in order.
And I won't even go into probably the most logical aspect to all of this, namely that gas prices probably SHOULD soar to unheard of prices more in line with the rest of the world.
This of course would provide further stimulus and urgency to develop alternatives, spur public transportation such as rail, etc.
Post a Comment
<< Home