If you do some research, you will learn about "strategic reserves" which are held by the U.S. government as a means to protect the citizens in the envent of severe disruptions in the supply of oil. It has been the buying of oil by the U.S. government for these strategic oil reserves that has been a factor in oil price hikes over the past several years. It is these "strategic reserves" that have been quietly filled for a long time now, and have contributed to the rise in the price of oil. Now, do we still need full strategic reserves of oil now that the war is over? Why were the strategic reserves being filled prior to 911? Why isn't that oil now being dumped back onto the market where it belongs, since the danger has passed? That would bring oil back down to where it belongs. Do you think that the major oil companies, and oil producers in Texas, would be informed if and when that oil were to be dumped, so that they could hedge in the futures markets to lock in their profits? When the government participates in the markets (not secretly, but also somewhat under the radar), and the net result is economic loss of the many, and bulging profits of the few, and if it really is in the name of national security that they are doing so, is it right that Bush's oil buddies are the chief beneficiary? It is amazing how people seem to lack the ability to connect the dots to see the bigger picture.
Optional777, connect these dots: I can remember in the early 70's a gallon of gas costing around 56 cents a gallon. Now in my state I can buy a gallon of gas for $1.37.9 (filled up yesterday at that price) In the early 70's a house average cost in this state was around 20-25k (my guesstimate from memory) Now the average cost of a house in my state is 150k. (guessing again - but probably not far off the mark) So I don't see the cost of oil/gas inflation relative to the inflation of other basic needs to be out of line. (except for maybe eggs..lol...still real cheap imo) So what if the oil companies make some record profits. They damn near went out of business in the 90's. People from Texas and Louisianna were moving to the Carolina's looking for work because they had lost their jobs with the oil companies not making enough/or any profits. Now if in your state - a gallon of gas is costing more than 1.37.9 a gallon then maybe your state is taxing your gas much more than mine is.(I think you live in Ca., if so then I know your state has the tax screws on you gas and diesel) Now, do we still need full strategic reserves of oil now that the war is over? Yes - we don't know what will happen next on the global front and it's better to keep the reserves on full - when possible. The reserves were used several times to combat rising prices during late 99 and 2000 if my memory serves me correctly. I owned and operated a tractor trailer at the time and was running coast to coast. (I'm not sure about the exact dates that the reserves were being used, but I know that they were) California diesel @ 185 a gal. was taking a large bite out of my profits, so I remember it. Why were the strategic reserves being filled prior to 911? See above ^ Why isn't that oil now being dumped back onto the market where it belongs, since the danger has passed? That would bring oil back down to where it belongs. Has the danger passed? Maybe it has, maybe not. One thing for sure, thinking has changed since the events of 911. Do you think that the major oil companies, and oil producers in Texas, would be informed if and when that oil were to be dumped, so that they could hedge in the futures markets to lock in their profits? Damned good question !!! Gotta hand it to you there!!! BRAVO !!! My answer to that is: most likely so. They would most likely get the news leaked to them one way or another, before the news became news.(and that, if true and probably is, is wrong) When the government participates in the markets (not secretly, but also somewhat under the radar), and the net result is economic loss of the many, and bulging profits of the few, and if it really is in the name of national security that they are doing so, is it right that Bush's oil buddies are the chief beneficiary? The government needs to particpate in some markets with regulation - deregulation of the power companies comes to mind. Best I can remember the govt. got out of it and you got screwed. (but that's another story) btw, same thing happened to trucking and it's getting worse by the minute. Back to the topic, no it isn't right, "net result is economic loss of the many, and bulging profits of the few." However, I believe that it really is in the name of national security that we keep our oil reserves as full as possible at all times. (especially since the 911 *awakening*) So is it right that Bushes oil buddies are the cheif beneficiary? I don't have a problem with the oil companies making profits, after all that's why they are in business.(jacking the prices higher than they should have been was wrong, no doubt and I believe that this was done for a while) But, let me ask you this question. Would it not be the same people making the profits, no matter who was president? Do you really believe that all of these events that led to higher oil prices are from a Bush administration master scheme? Well, do you ??? regards from, plum-stupid-uniformed - dittohead -never heard of oil reserves...lol..who the f*uck do you think I am- dummer than dirt- truely amazing- imagine that- lazy
By the same reasoning, if oil prices fall partly as a result of successful foreign policy, then we all would owe the poor oil companies rebates. Why should they suffer, when everyone else would be benefiting? Should they be penalized simply because they had past connections to the current Administration?
When was the last time a major oil company went out of business? Ever notice how stable the price of major oil companies are, even though the price of oil can fluctuate 20 to 30% in a short time frame? Did the major oil companies fail when oil went to 10 bucks a barrel? Hardly. They hedged in the futures. They don't need rebates when prices fall, understand? Well, why weren't they hedged this time when oil spiked up? You mean, they only hedge to the downside? Amazing how they always seem to turn a profit, good times or bad. Wouldn't it be great to be a trader on the inside, and know ahead of time when the government was going to buy or sell the oil in the strategic reserves? You would know when to hedge, when not to hedge, etc. I remember clearly when electricity spiked in California, and I spoke about gouging and the lack of concern from Washington (Bush) that the conservatives said there was no gouging. Wrong. Connect the dots. _________________________________________________ Speaking of government intervention in private industry, at the prompting of a strong lobby...with companies who contribute large sums of money to election and re-election campaigns, why is their talk of government support via loans and funding of the airline industry? Why can Southwest prosper, while others flounder? Why? Look at the salary of Southwest pilots, employees and executives, then look at the salary of American Airline pilots, look at expenses and other salaries of executives, etc. Let these companies go bankrupt. Let supply and demand determine the fate of airlines. This is a sham. And, the taxpayers pay for it....and the proposed tax cuts favor whom for the most part?
National security, yes. War profiteering, no. There were men in the past who stood up for what is right. Men who weren't bagmen for the oil companies or other businesses that profit unnecessarily from war. "Where is the leader with the courage to say, as Franklin Roosevelt did during World War II, "I don't want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this world disaster." Democrats in Congress--and Republicans who have not placed their conscience in a blind trust for the duration of the Bush/Cheney years, a group we hope still includes Arizona's John McCain in the Senate and Iowa's Jim Leach in the House--should borrow a page from past wars, when the nation's elected leaders knew what to call businessmen who used hostilities abroad as an excuse to raid the federal treasury. Senator Robert La Follette tagged them as "enemies of democracy in the homeland." During World War II Harry Truman referred to some forms of war profiteering as "treason." When he heard rumors of such profiteering, Truman got into his Dodge and, during a Congressional recess, drove 30,000 miles paying unannounced visits to corporate offices and worksites. The Senate committee he chaired launched aggressive investigations into shady wartime business practices and found "waste, inefficiency, mismanagement and profiteering," according to Truman, who argued that such behavior was unpatriotic. Urged on by Truman and others in Congress, President Roosevelt supported broad increases in the corporate income tax, raised the excess-profits tax to 90 percent and charged the Office of War Mobilization with the task of eliminating illegal profits. Truman, who became a national hero for his fight against the profiteers, was tapped to be FDR's running mate in 1944."
This is a sham. And, the taxpayers pay for it....and the proposed tax cuts favor whom? Spending 57 million bux of taxpayers money on court costs, for "I did not have sex with that woman" Liar, - it all depends on what the definition of the word *is* is, spin the truth Bill Clinton was a sham as well The proposed tax cuts favor my retired 77 year old mother - if the double taxation of dividends were to be removed. and the questions remain: Would it not be the same people making the profits, no matter who was president? Do you really believe that all of these events that led to higher oil prices are from a Bush administration master scheme? Well, do you ???
Bill Clinton was a liar, and a selfish bastard who put his own needs over the needs of the country and what was best for the Democratic party, I am no lover of Clinton. Taxation on dividends is a complicated issue. The private owners of stock don't actually pay tax on the dividends twice. You get a dividend, you pay tax on it. It is income, yes? No different than interest on a saving account for the investor. Why eliminate that tax, and keep the tax on money from a savings account? What income and socioeconomic bracket lives off of, or truly benefits most from the reduction in taxation of dividends? Would the reduction of tax on dividends of your 77 year old grandmother, really help spur economic growth in this country? Don't you think there are better ways to cut taxes, so that the money being saved goes directly into the economy, spurs economic growth and not into buying more stock or other investments? Connect the dots.
Nothing new under the Sun since at least 1846 and even before : War, Debt, Stock Market and Gambling from the United State Magazine which was the first creator of the famous slogan: <IMG SRC=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=248669> ) http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-...n/moa/moa-cgi?notisid=AGD1642-0018-28&view=75 <A HREF="http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?frames=1&cite=http%3A%2F%2Fcdl.library.cornell.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmoa%2Fmoa-cgi%3Fnotisid%3DAGD1642-0018-28&coll=moa&root=%2Fmoa%2Fusde%2Fusde0018%2F&tif=00089.TIF&view=75" target="_blank"><IMG SRC=http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/gifcache/moa/usde/usde0018/00089.TIF4.gif></A> Click on the picture for the whole article
So let's say that the oil companies are packing their pockets with profits thru all of this -- how does that affect you and me? First of all, paying 20 cents more at the pump for each gallon of gas is a nuisance at best. I'm really not going to feel it that much. If you think of it in terms of economic "util points," gas has a certain utility value to me because I need it to get from point to point (high utility). If, after filling my tank to the brim, I see that I am paying 4 dollars more in gas extra, that means I'll probably go get coffee at that Exxon instead of Starbucks. So I saved 3 dollars there. If the oil companies are making massive profits, they aren't just going to sit on it -- its going to end up back inside the economy in some form or another. I'm just sick of people complaining about gas costing $1.80 at the gallon. Would you like a clear breakdown of just how cheap gas really is? What if you were to buy a gallon of:........ Diet Snapple 16 oz. for $1.29 = $10.32 per gallon Lipton Ice Tea 16 oz for $1.19 = $9.52 per gallon Gatorade 20 oz for $1.59 = $10.17 per gallon Ocean Spray 16 oz for $1.25 = $10.00 per gallon Evian (water) 9 oz for $1.49 = $21.19 per gallon STP Brake Fluid 12 oz for $3.15 = $33.60 per gallon Vicks Nyquil 6 oz for $8.35 = $178.13 per gallon Pepto Bismol 4 oz for $3.85 = $123.20 per gallon Whiteout 7 oz for $1.39 = $254.17 per gallon Scope 1.5 oz for $0.99 = $84.84 per gallon
you asked the question, optional777, "and the proposed tax cuts favor whom?" and I gave you an answer, "The proposed tax cuts favor my retired 77 year old mother - if the double taxation of dividends were to be removed." and you say Taxation on dividends is a complicated issue. The private owners of stock don't actually pay tax on the dividends twice. You get a dividend, you pay tax on it. It is income, yes? No different than interest on a saving account for the investor. Excuse me, but no different than interest on a savings account? Stock investing carries a little bit more risk than a savings account does it not? Also stock investing gives companies money to grow on without them borrwing from the banks doesn't it?(anyway not really the topic) What income and socioeconomic bracket lives off of, or truly benefits most from the reduction in taxation of dividends? Would the reduction of tax on dividends of your 77 year old grandmother, really help spur economic growth in this country? . (- irrelevant I suppose but for the sake of clarity - she is my mother btw not grandmother ) I admit I'm a bit of an anal retentive virgo Well, my mom is not wealthy and social security sure as heck doesn't pay the bills. So her dividends are meaningful to her and yes given the fact that she and millions of other seniors would have more cash to spend it would have some benefit to the economy. Whether they spent the dividends in the open market - supermarket or stock market it would be of benefit to the economy. Although I wouldn't go as far as to say that that alone would help "spur the economy." I think that maybe companies would be more inclined to pay dividends as well and that may spark more people wanting to invest in their companies which would provide more growth capital. Don't you think there are better ways to cut taxes, so that the money being saved goes directly into the economy, spurs economic growth and not into buying more stock or other investments? Are you saying that buying more stock and other investments doesn't spur economic growth? If so? I beg to differ. Sure the consumer needs money to spend in order for business to profit. I'm not denying that. However buying stocks usually causes stock prices to go up and companies to have more value and consumers spending is needed, no doubt, to hold the economy up, but companies spending is also important for economic growth. I must admit that I'm not familiar with President Bush's tax cut plan. I'm pretty sure that it involves more than just doing away with taxation of dividends and involves cutting taxes for the average american blue collar worker. (educate me on this if you want to and have the time or desire) or I'll catch up more on it when I can, whatever. Yes, I can think of some other ways to cut taxes that would put cash more directly in the hands of more people. I allready named one. Cut taxes on gasoline. (might have to regulate the oil companies with a price ceiling in order for that to work though) One thing is for sure though, the states of Ca. and Az. (John Mc Cain's state) are sticking it to the trucking industry with inflated state taxes on fuel. * I don't hear any outrage* I think that we would be much better off to abolish the IRS as we know it and impose a sales tax to take the place of Federal income tax. That way, we pay as we go according to what we buy - needed or wanted. The cost of running the IRS should drop to nearly nothing compared to what it costs now. Cheating on taxes would be all but wiped out (I say all but - because there is always someone trying to figure out ways to beat the system). April 15th would be just be April 15th. All taxes would be pay as you go. Tax cuts or raises would be more immeadiate and more relative to income in fairness of who pays how much. (I suppose this could be argued as well as everything else that I say...lol) I remember clearly when electricity spiked in California, and I spoke about gouging and the lack of concern from Washington (Bush) that the conservatives said there was no gouging. Wrong. Connect the dots. Yes, that deregulation of the power companies from washington was under the (Clinton administration) And remember when your state said "no nukes" and refused to build power plants. Well, we built power plants here and sold it to you. Connect the dots!!! Best regards from, plum-dittohead-southern inbred-no nuthin-dumb as a box o rocks-time to watch the Derby- lazy Ps. give us some of your suggestions on better ways to spur the economy. I'm listening. Also you have yet to answer my other questions. Derby time now bb later. btw- really enjoying this discussion or debate or whatever it is.