just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

It's time to eliminate all subsidies for oil companies.

flyin_squirrel (Anonymous) says…

How about the Oil Execs ask the Senate why they will not open up drilling in Alaska, the Rockies, and off the coast of Florida. I am not siding with the oil companies but some of the blame has to be placed on the government as well.

Imagine if Iraq had a huge untapped oil reserve. Right now we would be requiring them to start drilling. But we will not do that on our own land.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“I am not siding with the oil companies but some of the blame has to be placed on the government as well.”

This assumes that there aren't good reasons for not drilling in those places, and that drilling there would make a significant difference in the world's supply of oil.

“Imagine if Iraq had a huge untapped oil reserve. Right now we would be requiring them to start drilling.”

No imagination required— they have huge untapped oil reserves. Oil that probably won't be on the market for the foreseeable future because of the arrogance and incompetence of BushCo.

acoupstick (Anonymous) says…

“It's time to eliminate all subsidies for oil companies.”

No! Don't mess with the “free market!”

Wait………

kansas778 (Anonymous) says…

How about instead of demanding that the oil companies do what we want, we change our lives so that the prices don't affect us? Instead of living in the suburbs and driving 30 minutes to work, move closer to work. Ride the bus, ride your bike, carpool etc. Buy a gas-saving vehicle. The government has no business trying to interfere, as gas prices go up, the market will respond. Public transportation will be used more often and other alternative methods will arise in response. I believe in American's ability to cope with these problems on their own.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“The government has no business trying to interfere,”

Government interferes with business, and business interferes with government. Always have, and always will.

While I agree with most of your points about what we can individually do to cope with the changing world, the simple fact is that we are still a social species who have developed an extremely interconnected, technological world. To make the rapid changes that it appears may be necessary to avoid some very nasty environmental circumstances, we'll need both changes in individual behavior, and governmental policies to make sure things that can't be addressed individually actually happen.

After all, if there is no more bus system in Lawrence, no amount of individual behavior will allow you to take public transportation.

gogoplata (Anonymous) says…

You could start a bus company.

acoupstick (Anonymous) says…

Moving beyond petroleum-based fuels as quickly as possible is in this country's best interests for environmental, national security, and economic reasons. Hopefully, whichever candidate wins in November will take this issue seriously. Given the current price of gas, now is the perfect time to build the political will to make alternative energies a priority.

madam_hillarys_pantsuits (Anonymous) says…

I agree with dialupandy!

Watching the politicians and oil execs going back and forth made me laugh…..

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“You could start a bus company.”

There is no transportation system currently operating that doesn't receive huge governmental subsidies. Opening a bus system without such subsidies available would be pointless. That's why bus systems are almost always run by a governmental entity.

1029 (Anonymous) says…

John Hofmeister says, “Fundamental laws of supply and demand are at work”? What a bunch of BS. Neither supply nor demand can be accurately measured in terms of oil. Besides the weak dollar, isn't that the problem?

d_prowess (Anonymous) says…

Can someone explain what effect making the oil companies pay more taxes will have on gas prices? It seems that will just cause the gas companies to hand more money over to the government, but not effect the price of a gallon of gas. Am I looking at this wrongly?

MyName (Anonymous) says…

>Can someone explain what effect making the oil companies pay more taxes will have on gas prices?

Oil is a non renewable resource and it costs a heck of alot of money to drill for new reserves because they've already found alot of the easy places to drill for it. If they don't use some of the money they made from the oil they're selling now to find new sources, then there will be less oil in the future and prices will continue to rise.

The problem with oil prices isn't just about the American lifestyle choices. We're actually lowering our consumption somewhat to respond to the increases and will continue to do so as long as prices are this high. The problem is that we're having to compete against emerging economies such as China and India who also want the oil. This is driving up prices on both ends, and could eventually effect the price of other imported goods as some of the higher prices the Chinese and others are paying for oil will be passed on to us.

The only long term fix is to find another source of energy.

d_prowess (Anonymous) says…

I understand the need for Oil Companies to reinvest and continue the search and drilling of new oil. I am more specifically asking what do we as gas purchasers stand to gain from the government collecting additional taxes from the oil companies.
Will those extra taxes cause a reduction in the amount of money the government requires to be taxed when we buy gas? Besides that, I don't see any relief from gas prices by making Oil Companies pay the government more in taxes. Please correct me if I am wrong because I want to understand this better.

Windlass (Anonymous) says…

It just occurred to me to ask what was being used before oil? I'll research my own question, but wasn't there something else around in 1940-45, around the time of WWll?

Windlass (Anonymous) says…

Did we move from steam to coal because we could or because we had to?

Windlass (Anonymous) says…

No matter what, folks, no oil would not mean the end of the world for any of us. We could bring back the horse and buggy if we really had to, and they could be more modern and “driver-friendly” than the ones from Gunsmoke days. Maybe there are just enough of us to enjoy going back to the simpler times.

I just wouldn't worry about it, let it upset me. We're Americans - we can do anything.

Calliope877 (Anonymous) says…

Windlass (Anonymous) says…

“No matter what, folks, no oil would not mean the end of the world for any of us. We could bring back the horse and buggy if we really had to, and they could be more modern and “driver-friendly” than the ones from Gunsmoke days. Maybe there are just enough of us to enjoy going back to the simpler times.”

Nice thought, but I don't think it'll ever happen. Too many people love their cars, and horses require more upkeep —people have become too lazy for such a responsibility.

commuter (Anonymous) says…

Even though the big oil companies made a but load of money, why isn't congress also looking at the Athletic “not for profit” and Endowment Associations? To me that is the BIG money is at. If those two groups had to pay some taxes, there would be a heck more income taxes coming into the IRS.

scott3460 (Anonymous) says…

“The only long term fix is to find another source of energy.”

Aren't you forgetting the “fix” we've been employing since the dawn of civilization? A good, population thinning war over scarce resources will be the likely way this is solved.
Five, maybe ten years of increasing tensions & it will go down.

Windlass (Anonymous) says…

Nice thought, but I don't think it'll ever happen. Too many people love their cars, and horses require more upkeep —people have become too lazy for such a responsibility.
–––––––––––––––––––––––—
Well I believe that people could and would change if their options were as good as or better than any current social crisis. I mean, give people a break. They will try if they think it works. And I don't know that we have to always be moving “forward” if moving “backward” just a little could make life easier. And let's take these oil profits and use them to build “back” into the horse/buggy days. Doesn't have to be horse/buggy exactly so why not modify the horse and buggy? Let's get innovative again, people. Come on.

We put men on the moon, for crying out loud.

kansas778 (Anonymous) says…

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

Government interferes with business, and business interferes with government. Always have, and always will.
****************************
I am saying interfere as opposed to facillitate. Governments have also been *involved* in business to a greater or lesser extent, but to penalize one sector of the economy for making large profits is stupid.

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

I've asked this before and I'll keep asking:

Just what business are you complainers in that you'd welcome the government stepping in to control your profits because your customers - who are buying your product in record amounts - are whining that your prices are too high?

There's a product most of us use. We want it. They have it. They can - and do - charge whatever the market is willing to pay for it. And as people are still buying the stuff (right here, not just in China and India), we haven't hit the ceiling price yet. That's probably much, much higher than what we have now.

You don't like the price of gas? Don't buy it. You don't want the oil companies to make a profit? Stop buying their products (I assume the computer you're sitting in front of is made of plastic?), and then go divest yourself of your retirement fund, who is making the money they'll need to keep your checks coming by investing in the oil companies.

Otherwise, face the fact that gas is not just already expensive, but it will get a lot more expensive, and very soon. Deal with it.

twaldaisy (Anonymous) says…

If we all moved closer to work Lawrence would be a ghost town.

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Look to Iran and Venezuela and their leases of oil tanker ships. Iran has several full tanker ships sitting in a bay, and has leased many other tankers that are simply empty and unused. Iran and Venezuela have entered into an agreement to tie up as many tankers as they can manage. What better way to drive up the cost of oil than to strangle the “pipeline” aka tankers?

acoupstick (Anonymous) says…

“Iran and Venezuela have entered into an agreement to tie up as many tankers as they can manage.”

From what I can tell, this is an unsubstantiated accusation. If it is true, however, it is a really big deal and a sign of very bad things to come.

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Why should Congress pick on the oil companies for more taxes on profits than it does any other? Why shouldn't Google or Microsoft or Apple or Berkshire Hathaway, or JP Morgan (recipient of billions of dollars of slosh Fed fund loans at a mere 2 PC interest) be required to pay the same taxes on their profits when their profits are larger, percentage-wise of income, than those of the oil corporations?

What about a “windfall profit” tax on x-box? Or how about American Idol?

What about the obscenely huge profits made by movie production companies? Or the huge monies earned by football and basketball franchises?

And what is sacred about the tax-free status of the Big College Athletics businesses? First, why don't they have to pay taxes? And why shouldn't they pay a windfall tax penalty when they have a winning season?

Want to penalize the oil companies for making a profit? Fine, tax the profits of all corporations, for profit and not-for-profit, who are successful, in the same manner. Fair is fair, right? Isn't a profit a profit? Or does “fair” depend on who is contributing the most to the Dems?

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Godot (Anonymous) says…

“Or does “fair” depend on who is contributing the most to the Dems?”

I'll assume that was a rhetorical question.

Godot (Anonymous) says…

notajayhawk: accepted. for just that phrase. What about the body of the argument?

dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…

College athletics? Sure, why not. And why does baseball have an anti-trust exemption?

As for those other markets, they are not purveyors of gasoline, which is the backbone of the entire economy.

It's a lost cause with you, Godot, because you also believe in zero regulation for power companies, for phone service, for trash and water, etc. However, it is safe to wager the majority of our society considers certain goods to be worth regulating.

Some things are considered necessities for day to day existence, and as such receive additional attention from the government when their share of the pie grows beyond what most people consider to be just.

You see, in the minds of most people things like gasoline and electricity aren't the same as movies and an x-box. This is not a true free market, in case you had missed the news bulletin. I think the whole free market oil thing was pretty much played out with a guy named Rockefeller.

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Well, dirkleisure, I totally disagree with you because I know that many of the same people who will never complain about the price of cable or movies or cell phones or texting or even the price of a latte, will demand that Congress do something about the price of oil.

It is all about influence, choices, and power.

Godot (Anonymous) says…

I will go a step further. Those who most complain about the price of oil are those who are concerned that it hinders their ability to overpay for coffee, for over priced houses, over priced cars, and entertainment.

You cannot have any of those things without oil.

Those who control the supply oil control everything…..for now.

dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…

Again, cable, movies, cell phones, the price of a latte, none of those are comparable to oil.

Oil belongs in a conversation with electricity, phone rates, water service, and other utilities.

Those same people would complain if their electricity bills went up by 200% in 7 years.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

I'd be happy with just ending all subsidies to oil companies, and taxing them just the same as all other corporations. But there should also be a tax on CO2, which would apply to oil use as well as other sources, and much of that tax should be used to find replacements to oil, which is clearly approaching (or has already reached?) obsolescence.

jafs (Anonymous) says…

If we want to get closer to a “free market” economy, we should stop all government subsidies.

Also, it is clear that the supply of oil is being manipulated by OPEC, so the normal supply/demand arguments are a little bit off here.

And, personally, I wouldn't mind windfall profits taxes on any/all companies that make huge profits. We could use some of that money to pay down our debt, and help those in need.

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

Dirkleisure

All industries are regulated to some degree, some more than others, but most regulation is for safety and does not interfere w/ capitalistic principles w/ the exception of anti-trust statutes.

Utilities are exempted from anti-trust statutes, allowed by legislative grace to operate as monopolies, and are thus heavily regulated by the government. The reason public utilities are exempted and allowed to operate as private monopolies is not b/c of their necessity in everyday use, but b/c allowing competition would drive the entire industry out of business in certain areas due to the high overhead costs involved.

So in order to have certain services at all in many areas where competition would destroy an industry, such as water, the government either directly controls, or highly regulates the services including maximum profit percentage. Again, the only reason they are able to do this is b/c the government is allowing them to be monopoly, not b/c of its “necessity”. This does not apply to oil companies and therefore only typical regulation in this industry is justified. Unless of course you would prefer communism as opposed to capitalism.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

One major reason for allowing utilities a monopoly is simply practical— there is only so much right-of-way land available to run lines for power, telephone, cable, gas, water, etc.

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

Jafs…

A windfall profits tax is unfair to the shareholders of the company. What have they done wrong to deserve getting a lower return on their investment? It is likely you or your parents/grand-parents have a 401k or a mutual fund with money invested in an oil company.

Since when does America tax companies b/c they are earning too much money (exception of monopolies)? Can we do this to all industries or just the ones that we label as greedy or evil?

acoupstick (Anonymous) says…

“I'd be happy with just ending all subsidies to oil companies”

We should strive to end or severely limit all direct or indirect subsidies, tax breaks and government funding of all fossil fuel industries in short order. I wonder how many of these senators are courted by the oil lobby

dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…

“Unless of course you would prefer communism as opposed to capitalism.”

Yes, it truly is an either/or. Much like your black and white description of utility regs, there is a lot of gray you are willfully ignoring.

Do you want to know why the public is clamoring for a crack down on oil profits? Because the public views gasoline in a similar manner to their other “vital” services.

Do you agree with that? No. Should you recognize the reality? Your choice.

The capitalistic principles the oil companies have been operating under the last 8 years, in the eyes of the majority of the citizens who elect this government, are not working.

Again, oil is different. You can explain why it shouldn't be til you're blue in the face, that will never alter the public perception. Your ideology falls flat in the face of reality.

areyouserious (Anonymous) says…

PURE Collusion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A free market without collusion would keep these prices lower, they all agree to raise the prices equally at the same time!!!!!!!

Government allowed Price-Gouging and Collusion!!!!

MyName (Anonymous) says…

>I understand the need for Oil Companies to reinvest and continue the search and drilling of new oil. I am more specifically asking what do we as gas purchasers stand to gain from the government collecting additional taxes from the oil companies.

It depends upon how big the (proposed) taxes would be and what the new revenues are used on. If they are very large, then we could end up with higher prices for oil in the future because the companies would have less to spend on exploration and drilling. On the other hand, if they are relatively small and used to fund new (and successful) efficiency or alternative energy programs, we could gain alot as we would be less dependent on oil.

MyName (Anonymous) says…

Godot:

>Why should Congress pick on the oil companies for more taxes on profits than it does any other? Why shouldn't Google or Microsoft or Apple or Berkshire Hathaway, or JP Morgan (recipient of billions of dollars of slosh Fed fund loans at a mere 2 PC interest) be required to pay the same taxes on their profits when their profits are larger, percentage-wise of income, than those of the oil corporations?

The short answer is because oil affects everything. Societies don't go to war over iPods, or Windows Vista, or shares in JP Morgan, but they have gone to war over resources like oil. If we can move away from our dependency on oil it will, at the very least, reduce our chances of being involved in such a war in the future (though we could very well be involved in a war over a different limiting resource).

RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says…

Maybe we should implement a petroleum tax for petroleum companies. This money could then be used to offset national petroleum prices. But some people are simply too complacent and anti-liberal to give the oil companies credit for ripping them off.

Or we could use that tax money to begin developing alternative energies. Currently, we are beholden to the Middle East, Venezuela, and Russia for much of our petroleum (and fertilizer for corn used to make ethanol). Sorry, but drilling for more on our land is only a temporary fix. Energy change is a nightmarish notion for many people. From what I can see, it's mostly the change part. We don't want them horseless carriages!

RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says…

Marion, you dong dong, what is your solution? Maybe you own stock in those oil companies and that is why you defend them so. I know where you stand on the viability of alt energies, but what direction do you think we should be going? We need to go somewhere, and our current direction is increasingly wrought with problems.

I personally feel that someone needs to step in and fix this oil problem. We know that we can't negotiate with the supplying countries to lower prices, so what do we do? We talk about this possible recession, people losing their homes, people going bankrupt, food prices are rising, and yet we are paying record prices for gasoline. What gives? Our entire society revolves around commerce made possible by petroleum-driven transportation. The oil companies, in my opinion, are not willing to reduce their profits, but they are willing to charge us more so that they can maintain and surpass previous profits. In my opinion, it is outrageous.

RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says…

By the way, annual profit is figured from the difference of the total revenue minus total costs. Obviously, if per barrel petroleum prices are going up, then the costs are also increasing. But instead of eating this increase in costs, the oil companies charge more per gallon of gasoline, raising their revenue so that the costs are mitigated and even negated by the increased revenues. It's BS, I tell you.

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

Oil is at a record price.

Gas prices are not proportionately as high. Gas was $1.20 a gallon when oil was at $16 a barrel. Now, oil is $120 a barrel. If it was a proportional market increase, gas should now be about $9 a gallon.

And yet, oil companies are making record profits.

Oil and gas prices are not governed by the free market. The oil companies and producing states have a tidy little mercantilist, command economy going.

acoupstick (Anonymous) says…

“Government will not and cannot resolve the energy issue.”

Because it is part of the problem in the first place.

“When measured on an inflation-adjusted basis, the current price of gasoline is only slightly higher than it was in 1922. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 1922, gasoline cost the current-day equivalent of $3.11. Today, according to the EIA, gasoline is selling for about $3.77 per gallon, only about 20 percent more than 86 years ago.”
Robert Bryce

For some perspective.

dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…

Did you really just compare the value to the economy and to the every day life of Americans of a gallon of gasoline in 2008 to its value in 1922?

If you think about that, you'll realize it is that comparison that could use some perspective.

That's horrible, really. To even put that out there is horrible.

kansas778 (Anonymous) says…

So when are the Senators going to have to defend the gas tax to irate citizens?

RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says…

OK, Marion, if oil companies only make few cents per gallon, then where is their money coming from and who is jacking up the gas prices?

And if by saying that oil companies don't owe us anything, then are you suggesting that they can do as they darn well please within a free market?

The fact is that our economy is only made possible through the use of petroleum products as fuels for transporting people and goods. It is an economy dependent upon petroleum. Capitalism is a heartless system, and it seems to me as if someone is being heartless. Gas prices, petroleum prices, and oil company profits are all at record levels. The record costs that oil companies are paying per barrel of oil are at a record high, which means their operating costs have risen. As a result, either their profits should drop or they raise gas prices to compensate for the losses. But that isn't what the current equation looks like. Gas prices are rising and oil companies are making more money every year. I don't care who is to blame (oil companies, the government, or both), but some part of the equation is askew. But that's just my opinion.

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

Hearing oil execs lament the free market causing the increase in gas and oil is hilarious. They are making record profits and consumers are paying record prices.

Oil and gas prices are not controlled by capitalism. Rather by something more akin to communism. A command economy where the oil companies and producing nations set the prices.

Think about it. Oil is at recored prices yet refining companies are making record profits. This is not a sign of capitalism and the free market.

bennyoates (Anonymous) says…

How dare these commie demoncrats harass these true patriots! The whole thing reminds me of the Soviet Union and those awful show trials during Stalin's reign of terror.

I_See_Dead_People (Anonymous) says…

Obama will drive oil prices higher than ever–just watch.

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Godot (Anonymous) says…

“notajayhawk: accepted. for just that phrase. What about the body of the argument?”

If you read my posts, I think you'll see I agree with you.

*****************************************
dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…

“Some things are considered necessities for day to day existence, and as such receive additional attention from the government when their share of the pie grows beyond what most people consider to be just. … This is not a true free market, in case you had missed the news bulletin.”

People made themselves dependent on oil. Why should the government bail them out? And what exactly is their 'share of the pie?' Like any other business, their 'share' is whatever people are willing to give them.

And since you apparently did miss the bulletin, it works like this: The price goes up when demand goes up. It will keep going up until demand goes down. That pretty much *is* the free market.

“The capitalistic principles the oil companies have been operating under the last 8 years, in the eyes of the majority of the citizens who elect this government, are not working.”

Well, nobody ever said the majority had any brains. If they did, they'd realize they are *part* of that capitalist system. As long as they keep buying it, the oil companies will keep charging whatever they can get. And whining that it's not fair because 'I need it' doesn't change that.

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

jafs (Anonymous) says…

“If we want to get closer to a “free market” economy, we should stop all government subsidies.”

As long as you stop all taxes, too. Or don't they affect market forces?

“And, personally, I wouldn't mind windfall profits taxes on any/all companies that make huge profits. We could use some of that money to pay down our debt, and help those in need.”

Just as a point of curiosity, do you expect the oil companies to just eat those taxes, or pass them on to the consumers?

*******************************
RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says…

“Maybe you own stock in those oil companies …”

More than likely, *you* do. Through a retirement fund, directly or indirectly through a mutual fund or the financial institutions you do business with.

“By the way, annual profit is figured from the difference of the total revenue minus total costs. Obviously, if per barrel petroleum prices are going up, then the costs are also increasing. But instead of eating this increase in costs, the oil companies charge more per gallon of gasoline, raising their revenue so that the costs are mitigated and even negated by the increased revenues. It's BS, I tell you.”

Again, just what the he** do *you* do for a living? What product or service do you buy - ever - that 'eats' an increase in cost rather than pass it on to the consumer? You mean like the way grocery stores have 'eaten' the additional cost of transportation rather than raising the price of food on the shelves?

The part of your little equation you're glossing over is that 'total revenues' is made up of two components - price x total sales. Record sales tend to lead to record profits.

By the way, how much did 'non-profit' LMH's total revenues exceed total costs last year?

“And if by saying that oil companies don't owe us anything, then are you suggesting that they can do as they darn well please within a free market?”

Um - yes. Just like any other business.

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

“Think about it. Oil is at recored prices yet refining companies are making record profits. This is not a sign of capitalism and the free market.”

As long as it still sells, the price keeps going up. That is, precisely, a sign of capitalism and the free market.

*********************************

I know the rantings of all the socialists here won't stop, but it remains very simple. As long as it keeps selling, the price won't fall. The price is not going to come down because a handful of people in Lawrence KS drive Priuses, or ride their bikes, or take the 'T'. When the price gets higher - way higher - then you'll see more electric vehicles in use, you'll see the use of more alternative fuels (including for air travel), you'll see solar collectors on every roof and windmills in every backyard. And despite all the whining, the oil companies do have a right to milk every last dollar out of a product with a limited supply until that happens.

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

Why is gas not $9 a gallon, the price that it should be, based upon increases in crude price?

Given this, how is it that oil companies are making record profits?

I would like to see evidence that increases demand makes up for this incongruity.

Refineries are paying more for crude oil yet charging a price lower than the increase in price suggests.

Please show evidence that increases in demand resolve this. It is easy to say, but proof is required.