So oil companies aren't paying their fair share?

[YogsVR4]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1361.html

The Windfall Profit-Taxers Are Back by Jonathan Williams

(The following article originally appeared in the February 13, 2006 edition of National Review Online.)

The latest annual earnings for ExxonMobil have shattered U.S. annual corporate-profit records. So, predictably, some politicians and pundits are back on the oil-bashing bandwagon that began rolling last fall.

In his response to the president’s State of the Union Address earlier this month, Virginia’s Gov. Tim Kaine talked about how oil companies should “share in our sacrifice” by returning “excess profits.” Statements like this bear a hint of irony, since the government collects billions of dollars from U.S. oil companies and takes an average of 45.9 cents from every gallon of gasoline purchased.

America’s energy companies are already providing a “windfall” of taxes — including corporate income, franchise, payroll, property, severance, and excise taxes. New filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) show that the largest oil and gas companies in America (Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and ExxonMobil) are set to pay or remit over $158 billion in worldwide taxes for 2005.

This tax burden on American “big oil” nearly equals the total economic output of Iran and exceeds total GDP in 150 of the 184 countries ranked by the World Bank.

In 2005 alone, these companies set aside more than $44 billion to pay corporate income taxes, nearly a 50 percent increase from 2004. The average effective tax rate for the major integrated oil and gas industry is estimated to equal 38.3 percent, while the rate for the market as a whole is estimated to equal 32.3 percent.

These large corporate income-tax payments by oil companies undermine the case for a windfall profits tax, but that does not stop some politicians from trying anyway. Even though supporters of windfall profits taxes seem to be failing in their latest attempt to impose a revived version of the 1980s-style tax, which consisted of a straightforward rate hike, they cleverly found an alternative plan to tax the domestic energy industry.

Last year, the U.S. Senate passed legislation that contained provisions to restrict full use of foreign tax credits and prohibit the accounting practice where inventory is estimated on a “last in first out” (LIFO) basis for tax purposes.

These provisions target U.S. firms and would put them at a significant disadvantage in their competition with large foreign firms — including the state-run oil companies of India and China. Today, companies based in the U.S. already face the highest combined state and federal statutory corporate tax rate in the OECD — higher than the burden in even France or Sweden.

Eliminating the use of LIFO inventory accounting and foreign tax credits is a backdoor technique to raise taxes exclusively on the domestic energy industry — truly a windfall profits tax by another name. Imagine if Congress shaped tax policy differently for workers in different industries. That would be absurd and unfair. Similarly, Congress should not be in the business of adopting tax policies that treat companies differently based on their industry, however politically out of favor certain industries may be.

This nation’s experiment with windfall profits taxes in the 1980s proved to be economically devastating. When we last tried the tax it failed to raise a fraction of the revenue forecasted and stunted domestically produced oil. Let’s hope that experience taught our lawmakers a valuable lesson.

Some pundits and politicians still consider “profit” a dirty word. However, if politicians pass legislation to punish the oil companies for those profits, no one should kid themselves about who would ultimately pay the price: we all would. The first to pay would be the employees of oil companies here in the U.S. — people who would make lower wages or perhaps even lose their jobs. Next would be the millions of Americans who have investments in the oil industry — people who would earn lower returns on those investments. Finally, the principal group to pay would be American gasoline customers — the millions of people who would pay more at the pump.

In other words, the old saying is true: Corporations don’t actually pay taxes — people do.

[carrrnuttt]

So wait...

...are you saying that record gas prices do NOT correlate to record oil company profits???

I can understand you being for free enterprise and all that, but I can't imagine how you are so for big business over the interests of the population. So that article is essentially saying that if we try and take back OUR money, that the oil companies now have as profit, then they'll charge us more anyhow? Isn't that how they got their windfall in the first place? By charging us more?

Although I don't agree with how the government seems to be overtaxing corporations, I don't see how taking it out on the consuming public makes it any better.

Maybe if Bush would quit spending money on his ever-growing war-machine, or maybe veto a spending bill here and there, maybe he can give a break to all these 'hurting' oil companies, and other corporations that the article is suggesting as being over-taxed.

Then again.

The article does not explain that Sweden has one of the LOWEST corporate taxing IN THE WORLD. Something they have done to encourage more corporations to form in Sweden.



Did you think about HOW Sweden compensates for the low corporate tax? Yep. They have one of the HIGHEST income-tax rates IN THE WORLD.



Can't have it both ways, bub.

You'd REALLY love their government too, since it's Socialistic, with the Socialist Democratic Party in control. Still like that comparison? They call their Social Security "Social Insurance", btw. Blech.

How about we look at it from a consumer's point of view. I know it'll be tough for ya', Mr. Big Company, but let's take a look:

http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/co...es/001541.html

RECORD OIL INDUSTRY PROFITS SQUEEZE HOUSEHOLD BUDGETS
Domestic companies account for over three quarters of recent price spikes

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, Oct. 29, 2004
Contact: Mark Cooper, (301) 384-2204

(Washington, D.C.) -- U.S. oil companies’ profits for the first nine months of this year have increased by more than 35 percent over last year, with the bulk of those profits coming from charges for domestic oil and gas refining, not from higher crude oil prices, consumer groups say.

Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union say the record profits, coupled with the Department of Energy’s latest report that heating oil prices have hit a new record --$2.06 per gallon --are a clear indication that oil companies are profiting at the expense of American consumers.

“After analyzing the most recent quarterly statements of the domestic U.S. oil industry, it is not only clear that profits have climbed to record levels, but that the major source of those profit increases is the jump in domestic refining and marketing margins,” said Mark Cooper, director of research for the Consumer Federation of America. “Well over half of that increase in profits has come not from crude oil, but from profits on domestic U.S. refining and marketing.”

“While the media and the Bush Administration blame OPEC,” added Gene Kimmelman, senior policy director for Consumers Union, “a close look at prices and profits shows that a large part of the problem is in domestic markets. As the Government Accountability Office recently concluded, mergers and the resulting concentrated markets have contributed to the problem.”

Cooper said the analysis shows that profit margins on refining and marketing – known as the domestic spread – have set records for gasoline, heating oil and diesel fuel in the past nine months. Since domestic oil companies profit from U.S. production when prices rise, almost three-quarters of the price increases for oil products and 90 percent of the increase in natural gas wellhead prices have gone to domestic, not foreign oil firms.

Cooper pointed out that “last spring and summer it was gasoline, now it is heating oil and diesel fuel that are setting records. Household budgets are being continually pounded by these rising prices.”

• Household expenditures for petroleum products – gasoline and heating fuels (natural gas or heating oil) have increased by 20 percent in the past two years.
• Over the past four years, household expenditures on petroleum products have increased by about $1,000 per year.
• For all but the wealthiest 20 percent of American families, rising petroleum prices have eaten up the entire Bush Administration tax cut.

To view an analysis of the latest oil company profits click here.

To view recent research reports on oil industry prices and profits click here.

And this is from two years ago. The prices have since risen, and so have the profits. See what I highlighted above? The Senate tried to investigate this, but oil execs refused to testify.

[2strokebloke]

If the point of this thread was to bore readers to death, we're making good progress.
I also don't think anybody ever accused oil companies of not paying enough taxes, so much as accusing them of profiteering.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

The article does not explain that Sweden has one of the LOWEST corporate taxing IN THE WORLD. Something they have done to encourage more corporations to form in Sweden.

Did you think about HOW Sweden compensates for the low corporate tax? Yep. They have one of the HIGHEST income-tax rates IN THE WORLD.

Can't have it both ways, bub.

You'd REALLY love their government too, since it's Socialistic, with the Socialist Democratic Party in control. Still like that comparison? They call their Social Security "Social Insurance", btw. Blech.

It sounds like the Swedes are really gettting screwed compared to us. But they make up for revenue in more ways than just low corporate taxes. So if you are implying that their taxation system leaves a lot to be desired I agree. Like most European nations they have that dreaded "value added taxation" system (VAT).

Also, the Swedes have other indirect taxes on top of the high income tax. They can have their socialistic system as far as I am concerned.

BTW - Married couples cannot file a joint income tax return. Everyone must file an individual income tax return in Sweden.


SWEDEN INDIRECT TAXES

The main sources of indirect taxes are

1. Value added Tax
2. Excises duty
3. Social security contributions

1. VALUE-ADDED TAX

Value-added tax (VAT) is a state sales tax that is levied on all increases in value throughout the production and distribution chain and reported to the tax authorities. Under this tax regime, value added at every stage of the production process is subject to tax. This tax affects: Producers, providers of services, wholesalers, and retailer. VAT is also to be paid on the value of acquisitions from other businesses within the European Union (EU) and for the import of goods and services from countries outside the EU. No VAT is paid on exports to non-EU nations. Individuals and companies who are liable to pay tax declare their VAT in the annual tax return if their tax base is not higher than SEK 1 million. The VAT is then included in their final tax assessment. If the tax base exceeds SEK 1 million the company has to account for the VAT in a special return that is submitted and paid monthly. VAT could be up to 25%.

2. EXCISE DUTIES

Excise duties are levied on some goods and services such as gaming, energy(fuel), alcohol and tobacco.

3. SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS

Social security contributions are levied in the form of payroll taxes and a tax on the earnings of the self-employed. Payroll taxes are paid by the employer and are calculated on the basis of salary plus any other taxable benefits provided to the employee.

[YogsVR4]

are you saying that record gas prices do NOT correlate to record oil company profits

I can understand you being for free enterprise and all that, but I can't imagine how you are so for big business over the interests of the population.

Thats not what I'm saying at all. As a consumer, I'd want the prices lower, but the article is in response to the 'windfall profits' bs thats been going around congress. Oil companies pay huge amounts in taxes. I'd rather the companies keep it then give it to the government. In the companies hands it will either lower prices or increase returns for people who own the stock.

Tax rates are to high across the board (except working population who end up paying no income tax). Adding a special tax to wring more money out of any spacific group because someone doesn't like their profit margin is pretty sad; its their product. I'd rather see the use rate for public land go up. Its a lot easier as an investor to predict how well a company can do with a flat fee in their business plan then an ambigious amount of tax they may have to pay down the line.

As for the prices. I say good for them. You don't like it. Don't buy it. Its not the oil companies fault that people want huge vehicles, choose to live in the middle of nowhere or just cruise around all day. I don't blame McDonalds for people getting fat and I don't blame ExxonMobile for people's insatiable need to drive.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

I don't blame McDonalds for people getting fat and I don't blame ExxonMobile for people's insatiable need to drive.

Are you freakin' kidding me? I agree with most of your sentiments except this. I don't know how it is where you live, but in Arizona, Phoenix Metro proper, everything is spread out.

Even when I used to post regularly in the street racing forums, back when I had a car worth writing about, a large majority of my 'encounters' happened during my daily commute, or while running errands.

That was going on two years ago.

Now that most of that is behind me, a large majority of my day is still spent behind the wheel, doing the good 'ol "to-and-fro".

I have a 13-yr-old son that plays all the sports his school offers. I have a 6-yr-old that does karate, with baseball in the spring. You got a family?

Besides that, there is NOTHING I would like better than to have a house closer to my work, but this current house is closer to my wife's work, which to me, is more important, and my job, which I started after we got the house, is worth keeping. Unless you have a plan to create a working teleporter in the near future, I think you should reconsider your [assinine] statement.

I'm not even belaboring the fact that you are posting the above quote in AUTOMOTIVEFORUMS.COM.

So, if electricity prices rise, simply for the name of profit, it's our fault for wanting lighting at night, not to mention heating and cooling? How stupid is that insatiable need huh?

[TexasF355F1]

My whole argument is, that if the oil companies weren't so limited in where they could search for new resources then either the profits wouldn't be quite as high, or they could be put forth in new endevors.

[tenguzero]

See, what this article doesn't note, is that when gas prices went higher in the 80's, a compensation happened -- better mileage vehicles. Japanese companies were already ahead of the swing towards better economy, while domestic companies were still turning out these gas-guzzling beasts. Lo and behold, the domestic companies fell behind because of their lack of insight, and they've been struggling ever since (I always find it interesting to note the fact that, demonstrating a CONTINUED lack of foresight, Ford again found itself in trouble here, since they spent the better part of the last decade focusing on stupid SUV's and other large vehicles, while the market moved on.)

I couldn't give a rats ass about the oil companies -- tax them to hell for all I care, they'll keep coming back as long as this country remains the oil-usage capital of the world. And with China seeing continued rise, I doubt the oil companies are in jeopardy of losing their massive profits any time soon.

So what if they start to pull out of the U.S.? What if they start hiking prices to keep up their ridiculous profit margins? Well, then the pace of research and development into alternative energy will only increase that much more. I for one will not be threatened by columnists like this Jonathan Williams. If he wants to spend his time concerned about how we treat massive profiteering corporations who have shown they are certainly not at a disadvantage when it comes to finding ways of making more money, all the power to him. I however, will not hesitate to lose a moment's sleep over the issue.

On another note, I agree with Yogs about the large vehicles and cruising around all day thing (I've heard idiots call into talk radio shows before saying ignorant crap like "It's my money, I make it, and I'll spend it how I want. If I want to fill up my F-250 and cruise around aimlessly, I'll do it.") However I find the "living out in nowhere" part to be quite a gray area. Unfortunately, this country was really built upon commuting. Urban sprawl and the high cost of living in the city has driven people further and further out, and we're paying for it in longer drives to and from work, which means more stress, less free time, and greater fuel expenditure. For many people, living closer to work just isn't an option, especially if, like the majority of americans, you live or work in the vicinity of a city. It's just too damn expensive for many to raise a family in the city, but ultimately, what people save in the cost of living in the suburbs, they end up making up for in the cost of commuting, which not only encompasses gas, but also the cost of vehicles and automotive repairs.

Coincidentally, I think our first step to lightening the burden of foreign AND domestic oil on our lives (and not to mention a good many other things related to stress, automobiles, money, etc.) is to undergo a restructuring of the way we live in this country. For instance, instead of highways choked with vehicles (each one usually carrying only one person) why not lighten the load and build more monorails or some other form of public transportation. Why haven't we undertaken this already? I'm inclined to find parallels betweeen the growth of our own society, and the growth of the importance of oil, and its number one application -- automobiles. Which is all the more reason why I have little compassion for oil companies -- as far as I'm concerned, their continued interests have only served to hinder us as a country. And now, a hundred years after the automobile and the industrial boom, they're still making record profits. Oil had its uses to fuel the booms that built us up to where we are today, but in the process we grew TOO lazy and TOO dependent on it, and now we're struggling to find answers to combat our global-leading pollution problems, deep-rooted reliance on often unstable bodies half a world away, and rising costs on most anything petroleum-based.

Oil companies obviously have little interest in backing broad initiatives that don't stand to benefit their bank accounts, so as far as I'm concerned, if they're not part of the solution, they're part of the problem.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

Are you freakin' kidding me? I agree with most of your sentiments except this. I don't know how it is where you live, but in Arizona, Phoenix Metro proper, everything is spread out.

Even when I used to post regularly in the street racing forums, back when I had a car worth writing about, a large majority of my 'encounters' happened during my daily commute, or while running errands.

That was going on two years ago.

Now that most of that is behind me, a large majority of my day is still spent behind the wheel, doing the good 'ol "to-and-fro".

I think we're drifting off my original purpose of posting this which was the windfall tax. However, where you live is a choice. Things are spread out here too and a large number of people drive 4wd vehicles because of the snow we get here.

I have a 13-yr-old son that plays all the sports his school offers. I have a 6-yr-old that does karate, with baseball in the spring. You got a family?

Its still your choice of what they participate in and how much your willing to spend on the activity as well as the cost of commuting.

Besides that, there is NOTHING I would like better than to have a house closer to my work, but this current house is closer to my wife's work, which to me, is more important, and my job, which I started after we got the house, is worth keeping. Unless you have a plan to create a working teleporter in the near future, I think you should reconsider your [assinine] statement.

Still nothing but a bunch of choices. Just a lot of whining.

I'm not even belaboring the fact that you are posting the above quote in AUTOMOTIVEFORUMS.COM.

So, if electricity prices rise, simply for the name of profit, it's our fault for wanting lighting at night, not to mention heating and cooling? How stupid is that insatiable need huh?

Please feel free to contact your congressman and have them do another investigation into price fixing. They've failed every time, but maybe this time you'll get lucky and have one of your wild assertions be accurate.



If oil companies collude, then prosecute them. Don't use the fact they made money (regardless of how much) as some sort of sinister intent. Any business is out to make money. As soon as government starts telling them how much profit they are allowed to make, we're all fucked.

I wonder how many of you people have started your own business. How many invested their own money and then looked for a return. For a few years you lose thousands. Then one day your product takes off (Arari anyone?) and you make huge $$$. You make millions. Dozens of times larger then any profit you made before. Does that mean you hould pay extra taxes? Should people be demanding investigation after investigation into how you made more money then ever before?

I'm all about supply and demand and a level playing field. Right now demand exceeds supply which raises prices. Always has and always will. Rising prices because of the lower supply means more profits. Always has, always will. Until someone can actually prove the the playing field isn't level and that the oil producers, suppliers, refiners, dirstributers and resellers are in collusin - its nothing more then sour grapes that your demand is costing you more.

[carrrnuttt]

Yogs, your last post has got to be one of the most out-of-touch, asinine posts you have made, to top off your last asinine post.

Fine. I made the choices. Would you have me home-school my children, and deny them participation in what I could only consider LIFE, so that I can't complain about the gas prices?

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

If oil companies collude, then prosecute them. Don't use the fact they made money (regardless of how much) as some sort of sinister intent.

Wow. Talk about narrow focus. Or is that narrow-minded? It's not the fact that they made money that a lot of people are unhappy with them. It's because they made the money by gouging prices unnecessarily. I would like to see you make a case for the price hikes as a necessity.

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Any business is out to make money. As soon as government starts telling them how much profit they are allowed to make, we're all fucked.

Again, you are being a narrow-minded, corporate whore. It's not about how much profit they eventually made, it's about how they got to getting those profits.

I mean, the local grocery store can get as much profit as they want. Just raise the prices on milk, right? Everybody buys milk. But then again, people will just go to the next closest grocery store. But what if ALL the stores decided on raising their prices?

Which leads me back the first part of your statement. I do believe the oil companies are colluding.

Think about it. I know it's hard for you to think against any big company Yogs-man, but please try.

Anyhow.

Think about it. The bottom and the top of the supply line did not record any record windfalls. Nope.

Of course companies are out to make profits, but then again, you DO know why we have anti-monopoly laws in the US right? I know none of the larger oil companies supplying the US breaks this law, but raising prices just because you can, and can get away with it, has to be at least unethical. BTW, I have another word for you:

prof·it·eer ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prf-tîr)
n.
One who makes excessive profits on goods in short supply.
intr.v. prof·it·eered, prof·it·eer·ing, prof·it·eers
To make excessive profits on goods in short supply.

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

I wonder how many of you people have started your own business. How many invested their own money and then looked for a return. For a few years you lose thousands. Then one day your product takes off (Arari anyone?) and you make huge $$$. You make millions. Dozens of times larger then any profit you made before. Does that mean you hould pay extra taxes? Should people be demanding investigation after investigation into how you made more money then ever before?

Did I ever disagree with that part of your statements? Nope. You are just too narrow-minded to see that.

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

I'm all about supply and demand and a level playing field. Right now demand exceeds supply which raises prices. Always has and always will. Rising prices because of the lower supply means more profits.

Where's your proof? Are we having to wait in line and get tokens like in the 80's gas crunch?

You might want to read this: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS21626.pdf

Here's a snippet:

Iraq Oil: Reserves, Production, and Potential Revenues

Lawrence Kumins
Specialist in Energy Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division



Summary

Iraq’s potential oil wealth remains largely unrealized. Substantial proven reserves exist, and there are likely more resources awaiting discovery. But oil production has been slow to fully recover during the post-Saddam period, and many obstacles stand in the way of achieving a stable export flow. Moreover, refineries are in need of rehabilitation, necessitating imports of gasoline and cooking fuel within Iraq.

Despite these difficulties, the existence of vast resources suggests easy exploitation and lucrative export earnings that could help fund Iraq’s redevelopment. But the sheer resource size masks the difficulty, described in this paper, of generating export revenues that could fund reconstruction and development and offset several appropriations approved by Congress. This report will be updated as events warrant.

Iraq Oil Reserves and Production History. With 115 billion barrels of proven crude oil reserves, Iraq has the world’s second-largest endowment of oil, amounting to 11% of the global total. Only 17 of 80 oil fields have been developed; the most significant are Kirkuk in the north and Rumaila in the south. There has been virtually no exploration for many years, suggesting that Iraq may have much more oil than currently estimated. Iraq also has significant proven natural gas reserves; virtually all are undeveloped. As a point of reference, Saudi Arabia, at 260 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, has the largest reserve base and can produce as much as 10.5 million barrels per day (mbd).

So, tell me how supply is low again? As a matter of fact, I read an article a couple of days ago that shows concern about the fact that oil companies seem to be pocketing most of the profits, instead of investing it back into the industry. The low supply is their own fault. Why should WE pay for something that is THEIR fault?

The above report is just for ONE country, which WE happen to control. Like I said before in another thread, I have zero problems with the US taking over Iraq for oil -- it's the dishonesty in not admitting it I don't like.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

Yogs, your last post has got to be one of the most out-of-touch, asinine posts you have made, to top off your last asinine post.

Fine. I made the choices. Would you have me home-school my children, and deny them participation in what I could only consider LIFE, so that I can't complain about the gas prices?

You can complain (in fact, thats about all you do) as much as you want. It doesn't make you right.

Wow. Talk about narrow focus. Or is that narrow-minded? It's not the fact that they made money that a lot of people are unhappy with them. It's because they made the money by gouging prices unnecessarily. I would like to see you make a case for the price hikes as a necessity.

And you call yourself a conservative? Supply and demand are confusing to you? Let me off the first link off google http://www.investopedia.com/universi...economics3.asp It does a decent job explaining how an increase in demand increases prices.

So far, no congressional investigation has found any price gouging. Your straw men are getting shakier and shakier.

Again, you are being a narrow-minded, corporate whore. It's not about how much profit they eventually made, it's about how they got to getting those profits.

Your name calling is as old as you incessant whining.

[/quote]I mean, the local grocery store can get as much profit as they want. Just raise the prices on milk, right? Everybody buys milk. But then again, people will just go to the next closest grocery store. But what if ALL the stores decided on raising their prices?

Which leads me back the first part of your statement. I do believe the oil companies are colluding.[/quote]

Thats called collusion and is illegal. Please provide the link to where the oil companies have been convicted or even prosecuted for collusion. Oops, just burnt another strawman.

Think about it. I know it's hard for you to think against any big company Yogs-man, but please try.

Again, you fantasize about what I know or don't know.


[quote]Anyhow.

Think about it. The bottom and the top of the supply line did not record any record windfalls. Nope.

Of course companies are out to make profits, but then again, you DO know why we have anti-monopoly laws in the US right? I know none of the larger oil companies supplying the US breaks this law, but raising prices just because you can, and can get away with it, has to be at least unethical. BTW, I have another word for you:

Did I ever disagree with that part of your statements? Nope. You are just too narrow-minded to see that.

Such a short sighted little man....

Where's your proof? Are we having to wait in line and get tokens like in the 80's gas crunch?

You might want to read this: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS21626.pdf

Here's a snippet:


So, tell me how supply is low again? As a matter of fact, I read an article a couple of days ago that shows concern about the fact that oil companies seem to be pocketing most of the profits, instead of investing it back into the industry. The low supply is their own fault. Why should WE pay for something that is THEIR fault?

The above report is just for ONE country, which WE happen to control. Like I said before in another thread, I have zero problems with the US taking over Iraq for oil -- it's the dishonesty in not admitting it I don't like.

The oil company can do whatever they want with the money just like any other company can. Their job is to satisfy the owners/stockholders not make some simpleton in the southwest happy. You don't like the price, don't buy the product.

As for that report on Iraq, I am not going to even comment. This thread has already veered from its intended course.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

You can complain (in fact, thats about all you do) as much as you want. It doesn't make you right.

What's wrong with complaining? I work hard everyday to get what I have and to support my family. I pay my taxes on time, my loans get paid, I've served the country and my state. See, you're problem is you're forgetting where you are again. Let me remind you:

forum
n 1: a public meeting or assembly for open discussion 2: a public facility to meet for open discussion [syn: assembly, meeting place] 3: a place of assembly for the people in ancient Greece [syn: agora, public square]

THIS is my forum to let out my frustration with how I feel my country is run. THIS is the forum for YOU to complain about people like me who complain about a government you are content with.

You have a problem with my complaining? I have a problem with YOU complaining about complaining. It seems it's all you do nowadays.

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

And you call yourself a conservative? Supply and demand are confusing to you? Let me off the first link off google http://www.investopedia.com/universi...economics3.asp It does a decent job explaining how an increase in demand increases prices.

Here's a better one, Yogs: http://www.uri.edu/artsci/newecn/Cla.../S_D/S_D1.html

Anyhow, I bet with all this posturing you're doing, you'd be surprised to know that DEMAND HAS LOWERED DRAMATICALLY.



And yet, no dramatic, hell, even noticeable price drops? Where's the equilibrium? From your link:

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

So far, no congressional investigation has found any price gouging. Your straw men are getting shakier and shakier.

What investigation?? Mind showing me the link? I know there were a lot of people complaining (there's that word again!) like me, but I have not heard of any formal investigations to date. Straw men? Do you even know the definition of a straw man? If so, it's YOU who are setting up the easily-defeated arguments.

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Your name calling is as old as you incessant whining.

What you call "whining", I call my right. You don't like my rights, move to another country. I've served in our Armed Forces, so I've literally earned my rights...what have you done? Fought for big companies? Complained (that damned word) about those who would side against you? Woohoo...what a hero...

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Thats called collusion and is illegal.

I sincerely hope that was not an attempt to to correct my usage of the word "colluding". 'Cause if so, you just made yourself look pretty stupid. Straw man, indeed. If you were simply saying that what I described with the grocery store analogy is indeed collusion, then you read poorly, or have been very selective, as that description was followed shortly thereafter by the inflected, past tense version of the word.

Either way, thanks for the clarification. I sure as hell didn't know what I was describing, or that it was illegal.

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Please provide the link to where the oil companies have been convicted or even prosecuted for collusion. Oops, just burnt another strawman.

Please provide me with a link where the oil companies were EVEN investigated at all by this Administration.

The "straw man" you burnt was your own argument.

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Again, you fantasize about what I know or don't know.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Fantasizing? Do you always try and use words out of their context as much as possible?

I was asking you, for once, to try and think outside of your narrow brain, and quit acting like it's oil companies that are being victimized. I can understand where you are against the [mostly] Democratic push for taxing the oil companies' profits, as am I. But I'm not going to sit there and pretend that the oil companies were not complicit to this issue.

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Such a short sighted little man....

Your name calling is as old as your inability to type, think and spell at the same time. Hell, your proofreading leaves a lot to be desired.

By the way:

Pot.

Kettle.

Black.

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

The oil company can do whatever they want with the money just like any other company can. Their job is to satisfy the owners/stockholders not make some simpleton in the southwest happy. You don't like the price, don't buy the product.

Haha. If I'm the simpleton, what does that make you?

I knew it! You're a stockholder, aren't you?

Hey, here's a thought: from your comments, you don't like the air I'm breathing. If so, will you stop breathing it? The air has no responsibility to you. It just exists. Why breathe it?

Tell you what, my only responsibility is to my family. How about I come down in the middle of the night, and steal away your gas-guzzling cars? I have no responsibility to you, you know? Who cares about you? I don't.

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

As for that report on Iraq, I am not going to even comment. This thread has already veered from its intended course.

So. I've killed your original argument about low supply, and I just stomped all-over the "straw man" you gave me in your argument about high demand. Still no comment?

___________________________

I'm short-sighted, you're narrow-minded. At least I can wear glasses. Your skull will probably crack if you tried to do something about your issue.

I'll trade barbs with you all day Yogs. Keep bringing it with the haughty arguments like most of us have choices about buying/not buying gasoline. You might not have a life, but a lot of us do.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

What's wrong with complaining? I work hard everyday to get what I have and to support my family. I pay my taxes on time, my loans get paid, I've served the country and my state. See, you're problem is you're forgetting where you are again. Let me remind you:



THIS is my forum to let out my frustration with how I feel my country is run. THIS is the forum for YOU to complain about people like me who complain about a government you are content with.

You have a problem with my complaining? I have a problem with YOU complaining about complaining. It seems it's all you do nowadays.

Its obvious you can read English, but are having a hard time understanding it. At no point did anyone say you couldn't complain. I just said its all you do.

Here's a better one, Yogs: http://www.uri.edu/artsci/newecn/Cla.../S_D/S_D1.html

Anyhow, I bet with all this posturing you're doing, you'd be surprised to know that DEMAND HAS LOWERED DRAMATICALLY.



And yet, no dramatic, hell, even noticeable price drops? Where's the equilibrium? From your link:





What investigation?? Mind showing me the link? I know there were a lot of people complaining (there's that word again!) like me, but I have not heard of any formal investigations to date. Straw men? Do you even know the definition of a straw man? If so, it's YOU who are setting up the easily-defeated arguments.

Have a few
From 2000 http://www.ncpa.org/iss/ant/2000/pd070600f.html
From 2001 http://www.ftc.gov/os/2001/03/mwgasrpt.htm
From 1973-2004 http://www.tcsdaily.com/sections/70s.../oilprices.pdf

What you call "whining", I call my right. You don't like my rights, move to another country. I've served in our Armed Forces, so I've literally earned my rights...what have you done? Fought for big companies? Complained (that damned word) about those who would side against you? Woohoo...what a hero...

I know its your right to whine. You do a good job of it.

Please provide me with a link where the oil companies were EVEN investigated at all by this Administration.

I'm still waiting for you to provide a link that shows they have been price gouging.

The "straw man" you burnt was your own argument.

Another swing and a miss.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Fantasizing? Do you always try and use words out of their context as much as possible?

I was asking you, for once, to try and think outside of your narrow brain, and quit acting like it's oil companies that are being victimized. I can understand where you are against the [mostly] Democratic push for taxing the oil companies' profits, as am I. But I'm not going to sit there and pretend that the oil companies were not complicit to this issue.

Spoken like a true nitwit.

Your name calling is as old as your inability to type, think and spell at the same time. Hell, your proofreading leaves a lot to be desired.

Ah yes, I forgot you're the proofreading nazi. I suppose its keeps you happy since it gives you another thing to whine about.

By the way:

Pot.

Kettle.

Black.

Haha. If I'm the simpleton, what does that make you?

Clearly the smart one in this discussion.

I knew it! You're a stockholder, aren't you?

Not directly. One of my 401K investments has a few percent in energy.

[quote]Hey, here's a thought: from your comments, you don't like the air I'm breathing. If so, will you stop breathing it? The air has no responsibility to you. It just exists. Why breathe it?

Tell you what, my only responsibility is to my family. How about I come down in the middle of the night, and steal away your gas-guzzling cars? I have no responsibility to you, you know? Who cares about you? I don't.

Don't breate.... Steal my cars... Yeah, those are good plans. Your rantings are getting more ludicrous. Its a waste to read any more of them.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Its obvious you can read English, but are having a hard time understanding it. At no point did anyone say you couldn't complain. I just said its all you do.

Of course you see it that way. You're content. You have the government you want, the Asian wife you can dominate (I've always had the suspicion this is why you married one, as haughty and condescending as you are). You don't need to drive (right?), hence you have no issues with gasoline prices.

Anyhow. So all I do is complain. In here, yes. This is what I use this forum for. Your complaint is ironic, since you started this thread as a complaint. I should have spelled that out the first time, as you are incapable of understanding yourself.

I work hard. This is my outlet. I complain in here. You have a problem with it, YOU complained. You are just as good at that game as I am, so don't act like you are above it.

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

I know its your right to whine. You do a good job of it.

Is that REALLY all you have? [Half] Witty comments to solicit a laugh at my expense, yet nothing of substance to offer back?

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

I'm still waiting for you to provide a link that shows they have been price gouging.

I don't know Yogs...you got me there. I mean, since the price hikes happened because of increasing demand...oh wait, I mean they raised prices since supplies are running low...oh...nevermind.

Besides Yogs, who was first, the chicken or the egg? Don't you think they'd have to be INVESTIGATED first, to get any evidence to link to, besides the cirumstantial ones we experience, when we go to the pump, and go home to listen to how many billions of dollars the oil companies got in profits?

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Another swing and a miss.

Is that REALLY all you have? [Half] Witty comments to solicit a laugh at my expense, yet nothing of substance to offer back?

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Spoken like a true nitwit.

Is that REALLY all you have? [Half] Witty comments to solicit a laugh at my expense, yet nothing of substance to offer back?

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Ah yes, I forgot you're the proofreading nazi. I suppose its keeps you happy since it gives you another thing to whine about.

Is that REALLY all you have? [Half] Witty comments to solicit a laugh at my expense, yet nothing of substance to offer back?

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Clearly the smart one in this discussion.

Clearly. You debated SO well.

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Don't breate.... Steal my cars... Yeah, those are good plans.

You called ME a nitwit? They're supposed to illustrate how ludicrous your suggestion was, of simply "not buying gas" since I don't like the prices. It also gave an exaggerated analogy of you stating that the oil companies' ONLY responsibilities are to their stockholders and their pockets.

I mean, seriously, would you have the right to run people off the road, if you feel that your only responsibility is to get home?

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Its obvious you can read English, but are having a hard time understanding it.

Pot.

Kettle.

Black.

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Your rantings are getting more ludicrous. Its a waste to read any more of them.

Haha. It's not like you really read, or responded, to any of them.

[YogsVR4]

The threads been derailed.