Gas-tax gimmick doesn't make sense as political strategy or as ...

Get Informed wrote:

Again, mis informed. The oil companies don't have enough access to oil outside of the Middle East. That's why the cost of crude is so high. All the oil companies do is pay the price for the crude. The US Domestic output is less than 10% of our demand. You complain you don't want to give the oil companies access to more oil OK, then you pay what OPEC says you pay. Nice solution. There's a slab of frozen ground in Alaska not fit for man or beast and you don't want to drill their. Enjoy complaining about gas prices and paying at the pump. Again, complaints, no solutions!
<quoted text>

I wasn't complaining about the price of gas. I fully expect the price of gas to continue going up and am prepared to deal with that. My point was simply that claiming that oil companies aren't making "windfall profits" is ludicrous. I'll leave the solutions to the experts. You can sit around and blame whoever you want, in the meantime I'll be reducing my need to depend on the oil companies as much as I can.

Get Informed wrote:

Again, mis informed. The oil companies don't have enough access to oil outside of the Middle East. That's why the cost of crude is so high. All the oil companies do is pay the price for the crude. The US Domestic output is less than 10% of our demand. <quoted text>

Oh, by the way, most of our oil DOESN'T come from the Middle East, so you may want to check your facts as well:

Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Feb-08 Jan-08 YTD 2008 Feb-07 YTD 2007
CANADA 1,920 1,944 1,933 1,840 1,848
SAUDI ARABIA 1,614 1,479 1,544 1,185 1,382
MEXICO 1,231 1,198 1,214 1,358 1,398
NIGERIA 982 1,163 1,075 1,061 1,085
VENEZUELA 945 1,135 1,043 1,115 1,031
IRAQ 780 543 658 325 433
ANGOLA 341 566 458 451 504
KUWAIT 261 239 249 158 165

Let me see, I am in the oil business and you are going to tax excess profits. So, I therefore stop selling gasoline on the FIRST OF NOVEMBER. Now who gets hurt. Not congress, they will pass a "TEMPORARY" increase in vehicle allowance FOR THEMSELVES. You and I get that part of the mine known as the shaft. And they really don't care. DRILL OFFSHORE AND IN ANWR.

Sorry you facts don't wash. We are largely depending on the Middle Eash. By the way you can remove Nigeria from your list. Civil Unrest is running out all oil companies from there. VENEZUELA provides sour crude which most US refinners dont' refine or want to refine. Additionlly political unrest in the country make any supply suspect. So where were you planning to get your oil?

ceart99 wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, by the way, most of our oil DOESN'T come from the Middle East, so you may want to check your facts as well:
Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Feb-08 Jan-08 YTD 2008 Feb-07 YTD 2007
CANADA 1,920 1,944 1,933 1,840 1,848
SAUDI ARABIA 1,614 1,479 1,544 1,185 1,382
MEXICO 1,231 1,198 1,214 1,358 1,398
NIGERIA 982 1,163 1,075 1,061 1,085
VENEZUELA 945 1,135 1,043 1,115 1,031
IRAQ 780 543 658 325 433
ANGOLA 341 566 458 451 504
KUWAIT 261 239 249 158 165

No one person can show that 8.3% profit is a windfall. It all based on sales not profits. If you want to use the correct terminology it windfalls sales. Sales are so high that 8.3% profit looks like a huge number. So, tell me what are you going to do about increases in sales! Should the government put a monthly cap on how much gasoline an oil company can sell? You can't expect oil companies to continue exploration is you tell them "well we think 8.3% if too much proift so we are going to tax you on it!"That creates one result. Less Exploration, less new reserves. So who wins in this scenario. The Liberal Democrats love to twist the facts. It's not windfall profits. It's an acceptable profit rate of 8.3% of a huge amount of sales that is completely dictated by demand. The media has you believing the lies!

ceart99 wrote:

<quoted text>
I wasn't complaining about the price of gas. I fully expect the price of gas to continue going up and am prepared to deal with that. My point was simply that claiming that oil companies aren't making "windfall profits" is ludicrous. I'll leave the solutions to the experts. You can sit around and blame whoever you want, in the meantime I'll be reducing my need to depend on the oil companies as much as I can.

Get Informed wrote:

Again, mis informed. The oil companies don't have enough access to oil outside of the Middle East. That's why the cost of crude is so high. All the oil companies do is pay the price for the crude. The US Domestic output is less than 10% of our demand. You complain you don't want to give the oil companies access to more oil OK, then you pay what OPEC says you pay. Nice solution. There's a slab of frozen ground in Alaska not fit for man or beast and you don't want to drill their. Enjoy complaining about gas prices and paying at the pump. Again, complaints, no solutions!
<quoted text>

The Environmentalists and the Democratic party's tactic is to stop the flow of oil by not allowing drilling of known reserves, hampering the building of refineries,and blaming the resulting shortages on Bush. What really surprises me is that so many people fall for it.

As an afterthought, it reminds me of how J.K.Kennedy and J.B.Johnson got us involved in Viet Nam with the Democrats later placing the blame for the war on Richard Nixon.

Stewie wrote:

Ok, I hope I'm right in thinking that I'm not the only fat person in the world who gets shouted nasty things at in the street by complete strangers.
But my question is, why? I mean, what does my fatness do to you? I'm not shoving a Big Mac down your throat so why do you feel the need to be nasty?
I'm not saying people on here do it (aside from the person who commented on an earlier thread saying "Atleast you're not fat")
But for example, a few weeks ago I was out shopping with my slim, pretty friend and I was just looking for a drink when these random kids started singing the "Fatty Bum Bum" song at me. Ok, I know it may sound humorous, but it was so hurtful. All I could do was pretend like hell that I didn't hear them and I could tell my friend was thinking "I hope she didn't hear that"
Also, whenever I'm out with my friends, particularly the friend mentioned above, I see all the guys heads turn to look at them, and I'm just the fat friend who's trying too hard to be something I'm not
And now I'm sounding like a stupid cow talking about my own self-pity.
But back to the point, why do people do this?! It's not like I snigger about random people in the street for being short or tall or too thin or something.
Do people seriously not see that what they say affects others?

Shut up fatty.
JK- Wrong thread dude.

A country of lemmings that follow whatever the media tells them without doing the research. Scary!

Gary wrote:

<quoted text>The Environmentalists and the Democratic party's tactic is to stop the flow of oil by not allowing drilling of known reserves, hampering the building of refineries,and blaming the resulting shortages on Bush. What really surprises me is that so many people fall for it.

Get Informed wrote:

Sorry you facts don't wash. We are largely depending on the Middle Eash. By the way you can remove Nigeria from your list. Civil Unrest is running out all oil companies from there. VENEZUELA provides sour crude which most US refinners dont' refine or want to refine. Additionlly political unrest in the country make any supply suspect. So where were you planning to get your oil?
<quoted text>

Actually my facts do wash, they came straight from the US government: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/...

Your CLAIMS on Nigeria and Venezuela may be true, care to back them up with evidence? It would have to be very recent changes since it is not reflected as of February's results. Even so, that leaves Canada and Mexico as two very large suppliers. As well as Iraq and Kuwait where we already have quite a bit of influence.

Get Informed wrote:

A country of lemmings that follow whatever the media tells them without doing the research. Scary!
<quoted text>

You really believe this?I watched Bush on television proposing proposing drilling in Anwar and the Gulf, and permitting refineries being built. His rsmarks were followed by Nancy Pelosi saying she wouldn't bring the bill to the floor.
Now thats scary.

Actually though, I do have to grant you this, the amount that the gas companies could lower the price per gallon while still making a profit would have little impact on the price of gas. I believe that may be the point you were trying to make and I wouldn't disagree there. Again though, I'm not complaining about the price of gas and don't expect it to come down no matter what actions are taken. We simply need to lower our dependency on oil as our primary source of energy and fuel.

All you have to do is do a google search on Nigeria and you'll find on oil companys is losing substantial barrels a day. Learn about what Sweet vs. Sour crude is and you'll find Sweet Crude is the majority of what we use for gasoline in the country and all of Ven. output is sour. Only a few refineries in this country want to even mess with this. Do the research on Mexico. The Mexican government controls the entire industry. Non Mexican companies cannot own and operate a business in Mexico independently thus no one is investing in Mexico. Their output is pitiful in comparison to what is could be but their technology if far outdated. So that leaves Canada. Isn't Alaska next door to Canada where Pelosi conveniently won't allow exploration and drilling. Expected as long as a Republican is in office so you can continue to blame someone else. If you think we could live without OPEC then we would do this today. Sorry we can't because we don't drill

ceart99 wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually my facts do wash, they came straight from the US government: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/...
Your CLAIMS on Nigeria and Venezuela may be true, care to back them up with evidence? It would have to be very recent changes since it is not reflected as of February's results. Even so, that leaves Canada and Mexico as two very large suppliers. As well as Iraq and Kuwait where we already have quite a bit of influence.

hadenough wrote:

<quoted text>
That is some pricey toilet paper right there!

HA HA HA HA

Wake up people. Let's see short supply of crude and short supply of refiner capacity equals high prices. Simple Economics. But you'd have to go to a real school to learn this. Nancy Pelosi is part of the problem. Pelosi is not going to bring anything to the floor if it has the slightest chance of make anything better. The Democrats want the country to be miserable. That gives them the only shot of winning the general election. Forget what Bush said and Pelosi said. They are politicians. Try researching the facts on where the reserves are for crude and how fragile this countries refining capacity is. We have built a refiner since the 70's Do the math, that puts our refiners at 30+ years old. No new ones will be built until tax incentives are offered to do so. Would your take billions to invest for 10 years and not make a dime until 10 years later. That's the dynamic we are dealing with. No start screaming about the big bad oil companies. You want cheaper gas it's time to act now for it will take years to get new reserves and new refining capabilities. But the Democrats just want to complain we need to reduce our dependency before we can consider new refiners and crude reserves. So what's wrong with doing both NOW!

Gary wrote:

<quoted text>You really believe this?I watched Bush on television proposing proposing drilling in Anwar and the Gulf, and permitting refineries being built. His rsmarks were followed by Nancy Pelosi saying she wouldn't bring the bill to the floor.
Now thats scary.

The math works this way. A $1 of gas
-72% to crude costs
-16% cost to refine and distribute to the stores
-12% taxes

The oil company make 8.3 cents profit per dollars. Now if you wanted to impact the cost of a gallon of gas what part would you try to decrease. Simple Math shows you'd try to decrease the cost of crude! Well you can't do that with windfall profit taxes. You can do it with more crude reserves we control and forces Opec to lower their costs to compete!

ceart99 wrote:

Actually though, I do have to grant you this, the amount that the gas companies could lower the price per gallon while still making a profit would have little impact on the price of gas. I believe that may be the point you were trying to make and I wouldn't disagree there. Again though, I'm not complaining about the price of gas and don't expect it to come down no matter what actions are taken. We simply need to lower our dependency on oil as our primary source of energy and fuel.

The more we give back the gas tax, the worse the roads are going to get because - hey - the gas tax is what fixes the roads. So we can go more places this summer and wreck our tires and the undercarriages of our cars because of the bad roads.

And then what - triple the gas tax in the fall so the workers can work on the roads 24 hours a day?

Do the research. The Gas Tax we orginally passed as a flat tax per gallon. Our lovely politicians changed it to a variable tax years ago because they saw an opportunity to raise more money to waste. Now they are getting more and more taxes the higher gas gets. There is plenty of money to fix roads. The problem is getting the government to spend the money wisely where it needs to be spent! Your analysis below is not factual!

Barb Baxter wrote:

The more we give back the gas tax, the worse the roads are going to get because - hey - the gas tax is what fixes the roads. So we can go more places this summer and wreck our tires and the undercarriages of our cars because of the bad roads.
And then what - triple the gas tax in the fall so the workers can work on the roads 24 hours a day?

Get Informed wrote:

The math works this way. A $1 of gas
-72% to crude costs
-16% cost to refine and distribute to the stores
-12% taxes
The oil company make 8.3 cents profit per dollars. Now if you wanted to impact the cost of a gallon of gas what part would you try to decrease. Simple Math shows you'd try to decrease the cost of crude! Well you can't do that with windfall profit taxes. You can do it with more crude reserves we control and forces Opec to lower their costs to compete!
<quoted text>

Ok, that math doesn't add up. 72%+16%+12%=100%+8% profit? The oil companies are literally giving 110%? That is the second time you posted that and the first time I let it slide, but now I have to ask where the 8% profit figures in. Something is amiss with those figures.

Regardless, as I said, I wasn't ever complaining of high prices or suggesting we find a way to lower them. I suggest we move to alternative energy sources and more efficient use of the oil we do use. You suggest increaasing supply, I suggest lowering demand.

Federal Trade commission supplied the information and since your too lazy to do the research the 8.3 cent is in the refining and distribution portion of the percentages. I guess you prefer there be no profit in the breakout. Try thinking a little on this analysis. The oil company makes no profit in purchasing the crude. All that profit goes to the foriegn nation how supplies the reserves. The oil companie refines the crude and distributes it. And yes it may be a surprise but there is 8.3 cents profit in this process. And it's simple math the oil company does not make any profit on the taxes. But the goverment does because they don't spend 100% of what they cease from Americans to fix roads! This taxation was fixed and is now variable and the Fed Gov is raking it in. So back to the premise of this forum. Repealing the gas tax would not be oppressive to our roads being repaired. Would not hurt the infrastructure of this country. But would reduce a small amount of taxation while not giving Washington what they haven't earned. Why is it that Liberals can multi task? For some unknown reason Liberals think we have to lower demand before we find more reserves to lower prices. You can do both at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive. Try fixing more than one issue at a time. It helps everyone faster!

ceart99 wrote:

<quoted text>
Ok, that math doesn't add up. 72%+16%+12%=100%+8% profit? The oil companies are literally giving 110%? That is the second time you posted that and the first time I let it slide, but now I have to ask where the 8% profit figures in. Something is amiss with those figures.
Regardless, as I said, I wasn't ever complaining of high prices or suggesting we find a way to lower them. I suggest we move to alternative energy sources and more efficient use of the oil we do use. You suggest increaasing supply, I suggest lowering demand.